Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL

Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.

To be considered on Thursday 11 January 1990.

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

Orders read for consideration.

To be considered on Thursday 11 January 1990.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Environmental Studies

Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to locate a centre for climatic and other environmental studies in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently announced the Government's intention to set up a United Kingdom centre for the prediction of climatic change.

Mr. Maclennan: The north of Scotland has outstanding centres of scientific excellence. Do Scottish Ministers back the proposal that the EC Environmental Protection Agency should be located there or do they back the Prime Minister's proposal that the centre for the prediction of climatic change should be located there? Both would be welcome.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman raises two separate issues. It is likely that the centre for climatic study will have close links with the Meteorological Office near Bracknell. That is still to be confirmed. We ane spending £1 million on environmental studies. With regard to a centre for environmental studies in Scotland, we

always support locating the headquarters in Scotland. The attractions of Aberdeen and Edinburgh were carefully considered, but eventually the choice fell on Cambridge, for the simple reason that several factors were of influence, including the fact that the world conservation monitoring centre is located there.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister recollect that I wrote to him to advise him of Grampian's bid for a European environmental agency to be sited in Aberdeen? He replied that it was too early to have a meeting on the bid, because the matter was still under discussion. A couple of days later, we discovered that it was proposed to site the centre in Cambridge. Has not the Minister fallen down badly on the job? Should he not have allowed us to push the case? Why did he abandon his responsibility in such a cavalier manner?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Ten per cent. of the British population live in Scotland. We compete with the rest of the British population for European institutions. All the factors are weighed on their merit collectively by the Government.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that while the location of any centre to examine climatic change is important, it is more important that changing climatic conditions in Scotland are carefully noted? In particular, such matters as the short days in the winter months and changes in lighting-up time—and, indeed, the time when anything else happens—are important. We do not want dayrise to occur at 10.30 am, as the proposals put forward by the European Commission envisage.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We particularly note my hon. Friend's point on lighting-up time and changes to summer time. With regard to cold weather payments, we have a common test throughout Britain, which starts at 0 deg C. People living in areas where cold weather is more prevalent stand to benefit most.

British Steel

Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of British Steel; and what matters were discussed.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I met the chairman of British Steel on 26 October. We discussed a number of matters of current interest affecting the steel industry.

Dr. Reid: Is the Secretary of State aware that that answer will be a bitter disappointment to thousands of steel workers and their families? Is it not about time that he faced up to his responsibilities? Will he make a start today, first by joining me in congratulating the workers of Clydesdale on their productivity efforts and, secondly, by making it plain to British Steel management that a failure to reward that effort with the necessary investment will be a gross betrayal of the workers and of the promises the management made to them? Thirdly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a public pledge to the people of Scotland that, if any one of the three Lanarkshire steel plants goes, he will do the honourable thing and go at the same time?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not know why it should be a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman that I met with the


chairman of British Steel on 26 October. As he well knows, since then, I have been in correspondence with the chairman following the productive meeting that I had with the Ravenscraig shop stewards.
I share the hon. Gentleman's view about the importance of the British Steel works in Scotland. I have communicated my view and that of Her Majesty's Government that we expect British Steel to honour its commitment that it expects to continue steelmaking in Scotland at least until the 1990s. I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the excellent work done by the steel workers in his constituency and elsewhere in the steel industry.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the substantial investment in Ravenscraig has been fully justified by the results—all credit to the work force? Will he impress upon British Steel that it would be inconceivable that it should start to run down the industry in Scotland after 1994, and that, were it to do so, there would be universal opposition to that decision?

Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is significant that, in the two years since the privatisation of the steel industry, British Steel's operations in Scotland have never been so fully worked, and the work force at Ravenscraig and elsewhere have been fully occupied. I share my hon. Friend's view that we want that to continue for many years to come.

Dr. Bray: Does the Secretary of State agree that the formal commitment to continue steelmaking until 1994 means very little if the investment is not undertaken to maintain the steelworks in a fully operational condition, complete with the cold strip mill at Ravenscraig?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course we welcome any investment that British Steel may think appropriate in the steel industry in Scotland. In the past, Ravenscraig has received substantial steel investment, and it is important that that should continue.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Does not the Secretary of State agree that British Steel's commitment to Scotland is not good and that we cannot have any confidence in its commitment to the future of the Scottish steel industry? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore say today that he will use his influence and authority to establish an independent Scottish steel industry with secure investment and a long-term future, which would not be subjected to the constant threats of closure?

Mr. Rifkind: At the time of the privatisation of the steel industry, British Steel said that, in the event of not wishing to continue its steel operations in Scotland, it would be open to making the steelworks available to any other interested purchaser. At the present time, British Steel says that it has every intention of continuing its steel operations in Scotland. If that ever ceased to be the case, the alternative option would have to be seriously considered.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that everyone accepts the importance of a steel industry? My right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to that steel industry is well known on the Conservative Benches. Does he also agree, however, that Opposition Members are practising a gross deception on the Scottish people if they suggest to them that any industry can have the guarantee of remaining in operation

for ever, regardless of commercial conditions, especially bearing in mind the fact that the vast majority of the steel produced in Scotland is not used in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly the case that the future of any industry depends upon the demand for its product. It is also true that, when the previous Labour Government were in office, employment in the steel industry in Scotland fell by some 5,000 and a number of Scottish steel plants were closed. That shows that, at the end of the day, it is economic considerations that are important. I believe that Scotland deserves to have a steel industry for a good number of years to come, and I believe that the work force at Ravenscraig have shown that they can be competitive with steel workers elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dewar: While the pledge about steelmaking to the end of 1994 is important, does the Secretary of State agree that the key to the long-term future of Ravenscraig and the industry is investment? Will he join me in publicly pressing British Steel to implement the realistic £10 million investment package for the strip mill at Ravenscraig, which will improve our competitiveness and do wonders for morale in the plant? Does he accept the urgent need, and importance to the Scottish economy, of modernising the mill at Clydesdale so that Scotland can continue to supply the North sea tubes industry? If he does, what specific steps is he taking to fight for that investment and ensure that, when considering where to place any plate mill built by British Steel, full weight is given to the claims of Dalziel? Will he assure us that, now that the industry has been sold off, it will not be a case of Scottish Ministers simply shutting their eyes, crossing their toes and hoping for the best?

Mr. Rifkind: I can give the hon. Member a complete assurance on the last part of his question; our activities over the past couple of months are clear evidence of that. We have already made it clear to Sir Robert Scholey and British Steel that the Scottish Office would welcome further investment by British Steel in the Scottish steel industry. We would also expect it to consider the claims of Dalziel in relation to the future of any new plate mill in Scotland.

Disabled Students Allowance

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of Scotland whether he will review the disabled students allowance given to SED-funded students in higher education.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Yes. The level of the disabled students allowance for the session 1990–91 will be reviewed together with other supplementary allowance rates.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am grateful for that answer, but I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would give a statement about the amounts today. Is he aware that my constituent, Caroline Munro, a profoundly deaf young lady, has been funded until this Christmas by the charity of an Edinburgh business man who read of her plight in The Mail on Sunday? What advice can the Minister give Caroline Munro? Should she look for more charity or do a lower-level course which the Strathclyde region can fund if his Department will not?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady might like to know that the level has risen from £180 in the last year of the Labour Government to £765 now—a substantial increase. The constituency case to which the hon. Lady referred involves a student who is profoundly deaf and needs special help. The young lady might like to apply to Strathclyde regional council's social work dept, which is able to help people with deafness problems.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister must know that we are talking about a small group of students at universities and further education colleges in Scotland. Given the size of that group, can the Minister give a guarantee that, when students are unable to obtain outside support, he will ensure that they have the necessary support to continue their courses?

Mr. Lang: I can give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that we shall review the levels, which will be increased in line with available resources and the needs of the students involved. We have already made a substantial increase from £180, during the last year of the Labour Government, to £765 now.

Homelessness

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of homeless people in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Some 9,500 households were assessed by local authorities as homeless during the year ending 31 March 1989.

Mr. McKelvey: I am sure that the House will be horrified by those figures, which are probably an underestimate. Will the Minister give serious consideration, perhaps over Christmas when he spends time with his young family, to those young homeless who are out on the streets with nowhere to go? This growing army of modern Oliver Twists have a nomadic life and no respite from their troubles. Will he try to match the money that has been given to England and Wales, so that the authorities can start to lay the foundations to provide somewhere for these young people to live?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is yes. We have ensured that Scottish local authorities have an increase in net capital funding allocations of £64 million, which we have announced. We shall announce the individual allocations to local authorities this week. In those we shall have taken into account the incidence of homelessness. We are revising the code of guidance on homelessness, as it urgently needs updating. I debated this in the early hours of this morning with the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I wonder whether the Minister watched a programme on television which showed a typical example of a homeless person who came from Aberdeen to London? He made only £50 a day in the tube stations and preferred, despite the advice of his mother, to remain in London making it, paying no tax and living in a cardboard box, rather than return to Aberdeen where he could have got a proper job.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) spent

the night looking into these matters last week It is significant that his advice was that young people should not come to London unless they have accommodation or are going to a certain job. Often that has not happened in the past.

Mr. McAllion: Can the Minister explain why, during the progress of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, he refused to give any responsibility for homelessness to Scottish Homes and insisted instead that responsibility should go to local authorities? Why, in the time since then, has he increased Government support in real terms for Scottish Homes, while cutting it in real terms for local authorities? Is that not evidence of the Government's betrayal of tens of thousands of homeless people in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I specifically told Scottish Homes board members, whom I saw recently, that they should give priority to homelessness projects in co-operation with local authorities; but we have given substantial funding to local authorities by increasing their net capital allocations by £64 million. Scottish Homes will be coming forward with a cash incentive scheme to enable residents in its housing to move out into home ownership, so as to enable homeless families to move in.

Mr. Ian Bruce: How many council houses in Scotland are lying empty, and how long does it take to refill a council house when a tenant moves? Can my hon. Friend give some estimate of the number of homes that are vacant in the private sector because people do not believe that the housing legislation allows them both to let their houses and to get them back when they need them?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I most certainly can. There are about 25,000 empty council houses. Many of them are needed for decanting, but at least 4,000 of them have been vacant for more than three months, and I urge local authorities whenever possible to bring them back into use.
Of the approximately 128,000 empty houses in Scotland, most are in the private rented sector; by means of improvement grants and in every other possible way, we strongly encourage the private rented sector to bring these houses back into use.

Mr. Maxton: When will the Minister stop being so cruelly complacent about homelessness in Scotland, and recognise that the true figure of 30,000 homeless people there represents a major crisis for him, for Scotland and for all whom he represents? Why does he—unlike his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—not realise that there is such a crisis and allocate as much money to Scottish homelessness as his right hon. Friend has given to England and Wales? Will he announce today that he is giving £30 million to deal with the problem of homelessness in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, it is up to local authorities, when spending the extra £64 million net capital allocations, to decide on their most pressing needs. I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider the fact that the problems of London are not exactly reproduced in Scotland; most of the £250 million funding goes to London and the province of the south-east. I believe that


local authorities should have the discretion to choose their priorities; projects against dampness and provision for the disabled might be given higher priority in certain areas.

Hill Farming

Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed hill farming with the National Farmers Union of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My noble Friend the Minister of State and I met the National Farmers Union of Scotland on 25 October to discuss hill farming.

Sir Hector Monro: I welcome the increase in suckler cow subsidy, but is my hon. Friend aware that the true hill farm depends on the amount of hill livestock compensatory allowances? Will he do everything possible to ensure that payments in 1990 and 1991 will be every bit as high as in 1989, in order to help that particular sector of the rural economy?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I recognise the importance of the hill farming sector in Scotland. Hill livestock compensatory allowances totalling almost £45 million have been paid annually. We shall make a statement concerning 1990 shortly. As to 1992, we voted against the proposals made in Brussels, and eventually had them moderated—but they were eventually adopted by a qualified majority. We shall bear in mind the points that my hon. Friend made, as we are aware of the importance of the allowance to conservation, the environment, jobs and the sturdy way of life in which hill farmers are involved.

Mr. Hood: There are many hill farmers in my constituency, which has a large farming community. Is the Minister aware of the great alarm felt among the farming community at the lack of availability of anthrax vaccine? Many farmers who are crying out for vaccine for their herds are discovering that it cannot be obtained. Will the Minister say what advice I can give the farmer who visited me recently, Mr. William King of Hawksland farm in Lesmahagow, who lost a herd in the 1970s through anthrax and who is now concerned that, because of the lack of the vaccine, he may lose more of his stock?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall follow up the hon. Gentleman's inquiry and will write to him as soon as possible.

Mr. Wallace: If there is to be a headage limit on HLCA payments, that will represent a limit on the European Community contribution, as I am sure the Minister will agree. As HLCAs were devised by the United Kingdom Government and are widely recognised as a most useful form of support for the hill farming industry, will the Government undertake to meet any shortfall from the European Community?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That proposal will come into operation in 1991, and it would be premature to make a statement about rates now. We secured agreement to have the headage limits reduction set at £2·5 million instead of 4·8 million ecu. As I mentioned earlier, we voted against the Agriculture Council as we thought that the

headage limit proposals discriminated against hill farmers such as those to be found in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We made a firm stand.

Warrant Sales

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to abolish the system of warrant sales in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: The system of warrant sales was reformed by the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. Those reforms removed the most resented and harsh aspects of the procedure. Those reforms were welcomed by the Opposition.

Mr. Marshall: The Secretary of State's answer is pathetic and disgraceful, and he should be thoroughly ashamed of it. Despite the change made in 1987, warrant sales are degrading and humiliating. The practice belongs to the middle ages, not the 1990s. Does the Secretary of State not appreciate the urgency of the situation, when the Government's iniquitous poll tax is forcing thousands of poor people into utter destitution? Will he not reconsider even at this stage? Is it not legalised theft to allow sheriffs' officers to value goods worth many hundreds of pounds at a mere pittance? There are other methods of dealing with the matter. Why will not the Secretary of State use them and abolish warrant sales once and for all?

Mr. Rifkind: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Law Commission examined the matter, and as an independent advisory body pointed out that the system enforced in Scotland is similar to that permitted in virtually every other country of whose practices it was aware. The hon. Gentleman referred to non-payment of community charge. One year ago, when the question in Scotland was of non-payment of domestic rates, Strathclyde region issued summary warrants against more than 77,000 people—but at the end of the day, there were only two warrant sales. It is very much open to the hon. Gentleman's own Labour-controlled regional council whether or not it wishes to adopt warrant sales.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State accept that Opposition Members believe that such an outmoded form of debt collection should be abolished? They will be introducing a Bill to that effect later today. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Scottish National party finance convenor for Grampian regional council preferred to lose his post rather than condone the continuation of the warrant sales system?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Ewing: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Does not the Secretary of State think it a disgrace that Labour councillors—so-called Socialists—are threatening thousands of people with warrant sales and are happy to serve as Thatcher's poll tax collectors?

Mr. Rifkind: While the hon. Lady is criticising the Labour party, which I have no doubt that she is entitled to do, she might also inquire into the practices of the only local authority controlled by the Scottish National party—Angus district council—which I understand is properly carrying out its legal obligation to implement the community charge. I congratulate the authority and


commend it for taking what is clearly a more responsible attitude to its legal obligations than the hon. Lady seems to wish.

Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that four SNP councillors in Midlothian who had promised not to pay the community charge are now paying it? Does he share my hope that the habit is contagious and that Labour Members of Parliament who have refused to pay the charge will soon do so, because by not doing so they are restricting the extent of local authority service and hurting those in greatest need?

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to say that the vast majority of members of the public are paying the community charge—up to 98 per cent. in the Borders and more than 90 per cent. in Fife. As for those who say that they will not pay, it will soon be brought home to them that if they succeeded in their objective they would simply impose an increased penalty on the other 90 per cent. of the population, for which they would not be thanked. As I have said, the vast majority are carrying out their legal obligations, as Parliament would expect them to do.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the great majority of Scottish local authorities, especially Labour authorities, have an excellent record in not pursuing warrant, sales? Does he accept that the new pressures on local authorities derive entirely from the imposition of the poll tax, to which virtually all Scottish local authorities of all political persuasions were opposed? Will he guarantee that the Scottish Office will take no punitive action against councils which, on grounds of human decency, do not use the abhorrent weapon of warrant sales?

Mr. Rifkind: It is for the Commission for Local Authority Accounts, not the Scottish Office, to examine any allegations made about individual local authorities. The level of payment of the community charge is broadly comparable with domestic rate payment levels at this time a year ago, when local authorities were issuing tens of thousands of summary warrants against domestic ratepayers. More than 77,000 were issued in Strathclyde region. There has been no change in the procedure, or in the legal rights of local authorities, and I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me about that.

Employment (Renfrew)

Mr. Allan Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has had recently concerning employment in Renfrew district; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: I recently met a deputation of local councillors and trade union representatives led by my hon. Friend when we discussed the economic situation in general in Renfrew district, and in particular the possibilities for protecting jobs at Armitage Shanks in Barrhead.

Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend, and congratulate him on his immediate acceptance of the proposals put to him at that meeting by Renfrew district council, the trade unions and the shop stewards. Does he agree, however, that there are a number of disturbing features in what has

happened—for example, the attempt by senior management just after the announcement to provoke industrial action by locking out of the factory honest, decent people who simply wanted to go to work as usual? Will he emphasise to the holding company, Blue Circle Industries plc that a positive response to constructive proposals would be in the interests not only of the work force and the community, but of the shareholders of this large, profitable and well-known company?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend's concern about, and involvement in, the company's problems are well known and I pay tribute to them. The decision must be a commercial one for the management of Armitage Shanks, but I am very pleased that the Scottish Development Agency is to participate in a feasibility study of employment opportunities in the area. Which I consider to be a constructive move. I have written to the chairman of Blue Circle Industries plc the parent company, urging him to defer the redundancies until the study can take place.

Mr. Allen Adams: I thank the Minister for his prompt action. Does he not agree however, that the parent holding company, Blue Circle Industries plc, is indulging in downright grammatical inexactitudes in trying to allege that the decline in industry in Barrhead is due to the fall in the lira, which it claims has led to the dumping of sanitary ware in Scotland and in Britain as a whole? Does the Minister agree that the real reason for the decline is undiluted greed on the part of a company which made £231 million last year?

Mr. Lang: I cannot agree with the argument to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He mentioned the Italian lira and imports of products from abroad. In fact. the movement of the lira in the past 12 months has helped domestic production and reduced the threat of imports.

Nature Conservancy Council

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Wildlife Link about his proposals for the future of the scientific capability of the Nature Conservancy Council.

Mr. Rifkind: The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Wildlife Link both stressed the need for cohesive scientific advice on an all-Britain basis. I am happy to confirm that the proposed reforms will ensure that this is achieved.

Mr. Dalyell: Why has the Secretary of State refused the eminently sensible request of his Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), for an independent chairman of the science co-ordinating committee?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must not jump to conclusions with regard to that proposal. The proposals on nature conservancy have been warmly welcomed in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman knows, by the Scottish council of the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Scottish Green party and more than 90 other organisations and individuals. We broadly welcome


the proposals from the Nature Conservancy Council United Kingdom headquarters for a joint committee. I believe that the proposals were constructive and helpful.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory non-answer to that question, I shall raise the matter at 5.30 am tomorrow in the Consolidated Fund debate.

Health Service (Waiting Lists)

Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to effect further reductions in waiting lists in the Scottish Health Service.

Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to effect further reductions in waiting lists in the Scottish Health Service.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Following the success of our waiting list initiatives, I will make £7 million available next year to make further progress in reducing waiting lists.

Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply, and for what it augurs for the people of Scotland. Does he agree that while the decreases in waiting lists have been primarily associated with Government initiatives, the increases have been critically associated with trade union strike action? Does he agree that the best thing that the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees could do to improve the Health Service is not to posture on television, but to earn the sobriquet of the caring profession by encouraging their members to stay at work?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to point to the effects of industrial action on waiting lists. In-patient waiting lists in Scotland currently stand at rather more than 60,000. The industrial action in 1982 added about 20,000 people to the waiting list and industrial action in 1978 did the same. It is important for everyone who supports strikes in the National Health Service to realise that it is the patients who are the victims.

Mr. Summerson: The figures that my hon. Friend has given to the House will be welcomed by everyone. Will my hon. Friend compare and contrast the excellent record of the Conservative Government in Scotland with the truly lamentable record of the last Labour Government?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the record of the last Labour Government. I am sure that they did not mean to do badly with the Health Service. They cut the Health Service because they failed to manage the economy. Because of the economic success that we have enjoyed, we have been able to invest in the Health Service and bring waiting times down.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my colleagues and I recently met the Lothian health board, who informed us that it had to make cuts of £6 million this year and that one method was not to reappoint staff? If one does not reappoint medical staff, how does the hon. Gentleman believe that one can deal with the patient waiting list?

Mr. Forsyth: I am somewhat surprised at the hon. Gentleman's account of the meeting with Lothian region.
In common with the other Scottish health boards, Lothian has enjoyed growth in resources and is announcing a major investment programme in the hospital service at the moment. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be aware of that. It is certainly true that the region will have to reassess its priorities. That is partly because it is introducing new services and bringing in new hospitals—for example, the major building project in the constituency of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—and has had to change expenditure to reflect that.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that, only this morning, I was on the telephone to the Edinburgh royal infirmary about a constituent who was told in August that he would have to wait two or three months for a heart bypass operation, who was then told that he must wait an extra six or eight weeks and who was told last week that he will have to wait until February? When I spoke to the doctor this morning, he said that people are waiting 15 months for heart operations in Edinburgh. We are getting to the point at which the queue is self-limiting because people die before they can have the operation. Does the Minister accept that that is a tragic and scandalous state of affairs, and will he take action to see that something is done about it?

Mr. Forsyth: I am concerned to hear about that case. The hon. Member is right to draw attention to increasing waiting times for heart surgery, but, in fairness, he should also mention the substantial extra number of patients being given cardiac surgery and the substantial resources that we have made available for that. He knows from the statement that we made last week that we are looking into how we can expand cardiac surgery. We have provided the resources to achieve that. I remind the House of what my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) said —that industrial action in the Health Service makes the task of getting waiting lists down even harder.

Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister explain why he is so insecure in his stewardship of the Scottish Health Service that he has to arrange for planted dolly questions from English Tory Members to protect him from Scottish Members? Is not the Scottish Health Service exactly the type of subject which should prpperly be examined by a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? If the subject received such examination, does the Minister think that anyone in Scotland would regard the Health Service as safe in his hands?

Mr. Forsyth: I note the hon. Gentleman's appeal for a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. I served on the last Select Committee, which examined the hospital building programme and I am studying its findings. Members of the Scottish National party refused to serve on that Select Committee because they regarded it as a waste of time. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of being accused of having double standards. As for the accusation about planted questions, it is a sad testimony that the SNP is not interested in the progress being made to reduce waiting times for patients.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is the only Scotsman on the Government side who has risen.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am obliged for your protection, Mr. Speaker. On matters of dress I take my orders from the Prince of Wales and give my orders to you. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on with it.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's success in the reduction of waiting lists in Scotland is just another reflection of the success of their economic policies, which have increased expenditure on the Scottish National Health Service from £1 billion in 1979 to £3,000 million in 1989? Is it not marvellous that we spend £550 on every patient in Scotland while £450 is spent on every English patient? Should not Opposition Members be proud that we have made in Scotland the best health service in the world?

Mr. Forsyth: You will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for observing that my hon. and learned Friend was being barracked while he spelled out the record of success in the Health Service. He is right to say that expenditure in cash terms has been trebled. Expenditure on the Health Service in Scotland now represents £550 per year for every man, woman and child in Scotland. That is an increase, over and above inflation, of more than one third. That is a record to be proud of and one which none of the Opposition parties came close to approaching when they were in office.

Mr. Dewar: As the Under-Secretary of State on occasion takes an embarrassingly close interest in broadcasting, may I congratulate him on the obvious care that he has taken to get the right camera angle today? I know that he is aware of reports that one in five heart operations at the sick children's hospital in Glasgow have had to be postponed, sometimes at very short notice, even at a few minutes' notice.
The Minister has expressed his concern about that serious matter, and said that he had asked for a report to be available at the end of last week. Does he intend to publish that report? Will he give an assurance that the situation that led the consultant surgeon at the sick children's hospital to complain about financial constraints and the shortage of intensive care beds will be tackled immediately? Does he agree that such a traumatic shortage gives the lie to the often complacent attitude of the Scottish Office towards the Health Service?

Mr. Forsyth: I have looked into the matter fairly carefully and I understand that the use of intensive care beds at the hospital averages about 76 per cent. There are peaks at particular times of the year and there have been problems with the management of the beds. It is a matter not of resources but of the management of resources. I have asked the Department to find out the detailed position and if additional resources are required to prevent operations on children being cancelled at short notice, we shall certainly seek to provide them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that is not acceptable for something like one in nine operations to be cancelled at short notice and we shall certainly look into that. I do not think that it would be appropriate to publish a report setting out the position in detail. Most people are concerned that the children should get their operations when they need them.

Student Loans

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to shorten courses in the central institutions in Scotland to meet the impact of a student loans scheme.

Mr. Rifkind: Unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by 32 per cent. over the past three years and by over 14,000 in the last year alone—

Hon. Members: Wrong one!

Mr. Lang: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Lang.

Mr. Lang: I always defer to my right hon. and learned Friend.
The length of courses in the central institutions in Scotland is a matter for the institutions themselves, rather than for Ministers.

Mr. Watson: I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on his performance in the first Scottish Question Time this Session. The Minister to whom my question is directed must be aware that all Scottish universities and central institutions which responded to the White Paper on student loans, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland outlined their opposition to the proposal because they realise the detrimental effect that it will have on the fourth year of study in Scotland. They are quite clear that it will have a detrimental effect on the Scottish system of education. Is the Minister really saying that they are all wrong and that, as usual, only the Government are right?

Mr. Lang: I see no evidence at all that the top-up loan system should be detrimental to the four-year degree course. Scottish students enjoying a four-year degree course are receiving grants and maintenance for four rather than three years, but not all Scottish degree courses are for four years and not all courses south of the border are shorter than four years. It is important to find the best method of financing students in higher education. I believe that top-up loans are a very useful adjunct to the fees and maintenance grants which are continuing to be paid.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that international comparisons suggest that access to higher education is rather better in countries with combined grant and loan systems than it is in Britain? Does he further agree that there is no evidence that top-up loans will be a disincentive to any Scottish four-year course? By definition, those who argue that it would be a disincentive are arguing that students themselves place a very low value on the fourth year of that course. If that were the case, it would raise a major question about why the taxpayer should continue to fund them.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have the most generous student funding arrangements of any industrialised country in the world. Most countries that have far more substantial student loan arrangements than we are contemplating also have higher student participation. In Scotland 20 per cent. of students come from south of the border. Clearly they do not regard a four-year degree course as a disadvantage.

Mr. Worthington: We should pause for a moment and condemn the Minister of State's announcement yesterday on student grants. Increasing the grant by only 5 per cent. was a further imposition of a cut in living standards for students in Scotland. That means that there has been a cut of nearly 25 per cent. in the value of the grant since 1979. If it had been maintained at its 1979 level, it would have been worth £1,600 more over a four-year degree course. We are particularly worried about the length— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the House is anxious that the shadow Minister should ask a question.

Mr. Worthington: Does the Minister agree that the cut will be particularly damaging to women, single parents and low wage earners who are considering a career change, because they will have to pick up the bill for a four-year Scottish degree course? Who will make such a change when it means debts of thousands of pounds?

Mr. Lang: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. In the United States, where loans play a far greater part, women students at university are in the majority. It is important to get the balance right. We must decide whether it is fair to ask taxpayers—most of whom earn less than students will once they have graduated—to continue to bear the huge burden of higher education. It is entirely fair to ask students to bear a burden of 7 to 10 per cent. of the total cost of their education.

Unemployment (Glasgow)

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will be taking to reduce unemployment in Glasgow.

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by more than 32 per cent. in the past three years and by more than 14,000 in the past year alone. The full range of employment and training services will continue to be available to combat unemployment in the area, and I look forward to the establishment there of a local enterprise company under our Scottish enterprise proposals.

Mr. Martin: The Minister must know that the unemployment rate in Springburn ranks about the fourth highest in the United Kingdom. He gave a complacent answer. He knows that 6,000 people are unemployed, 30 per cent. of whom have been unemployed for more than a year. Young people in almost every street in places such as Haghill, Jermison and Possil Park have not had a decent job since they left school. If the Minister will not do anything about that, he should resign.

Mr. Rifkind: Not only are we as concerned as the hon. Gentleman clearly is, but we are doing a great deal about it. More than 8,000 youngsters in Glasgow are benefiting from the youth training scheme, which will enable the majority of them to gain employment. The hon. Gentleman is normally fair, and I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by more than 14,000 in the past 12 months. That includes several thousand people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. If he wishes to be balanced, he should give credit where it is due.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that setting up the student loans company in Glasgow will bring new job opportunities?

Mr. Rifkind: A number of initiatives have led to new employment in the Glasgow area in the public and private sectors. The fact that Glasgow is increasingly being regarded as an attractive location for work which was previously done in the south of England shows the growing effectiveness and attraction of the Scottish economy.

Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the close relationship between the Glasgow economy and that of Lanarkshire? Is he aware of the recently published Scottish Trade Union Congress document, which showed the potentially devastating domino effect down the Clyde of any loss of steel capacity in Lanarkshire? When the Secretary of State met the chairman of British Steel on 26 October, did the charman tell him that the company was purchasing a second-hand mill from Japan and storing it at Lackenby? If not, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we cannot trust British Steel? Will he give an assurance on behalf of the Government and not just the Scottish Office that the Government will make an unequivocal demand that if there is to be a single plate mill strategy it will go to Dalziel and Motherwell and not to Lackenby?

Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the north of England and Scotland will be concerned to get future investment in the steel industry. I appreciate that as a member of the Scottish National party he has no interest in what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom. He will also appreciate that the visit by his party to steelworkers in the north of England was seen as a most inopportune initiative which did no good service to steelworkers in Scotland. Of course, we would welcome investment by British Steel in Scotland and, in particular, hope that it will give favourable consideration to the claims of Dalziel for a new strip mill.

Police Accommodation

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the financial effect on police officers in provided accommodation arising from the recommendations of the police arbitration tribunal.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The effect on police officers would vary according to the level of the relevant community charge, the amount of the proposed force housing allowance and the rent charged for the accommodation provided.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the rent charged for police provided accommodation can be higher than the housing allowance payable? Is he further aware that officers in Scotland will have to pay rent, the community charge, income tax and an 11 per cent. contribution towards their pensions? Is he also aware that new entrants to the force will be substantially worse off than serving officers in post on 31 March 1990? What does he think that the effect of that will be on recruitment and on the maintenance of law and order in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend represents the Police Federation and I am aware of the


factors that he mentioned. The regulations will come into effect on 22 December. They will backdate the rent allowance for Scottish police officers, which will be popular with those concerned. My hon. Friend should be aware that we have today received the recommendations from the police negotiating board, but there is a difficulty with the police arbitration tribunal decision about officers occupying provided accommodation who would have to pay more rent than they would receive in housing allowance and that would be a less favourable position than at present. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will give urgent and careful consideration to the recommendations.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister aware that that has been going on since April this year? I am asking my question in the interest of my constituents who are in the police force and not because I am being paid by the Police Federation. It is a simple matter to separate that part of the rent from that part of the rates given to police officers as their allowance. That would deal with the problems that have arisen for police officers who live in provided accommodation and which have been caused by the imposition of the poll tax in Scotland. I wrote to the Minister some months ago about this issue and he has had plenty of time to sort it out. It is an absolute disgrace that police officers are still suffering.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The regulations come into effect on 22 December. I am glad that Opposition Members have not prayed against them. The backdated sums will be paid out by many forces before the end of the year. Another problem about the police arbitration tribunal was that it recommended the right to buy for all police houses. In certain remote areas, such houses are not surplus to police requirements and we are duty bound to look into the implications of these matters.

New Towns

Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the house waiting lists for each of the five Scottish new towns.

Mr. Lang: The numbers on house waiting lists in the five Scottish new towns are as follows:



Number


Irvine
915


Glenrothes
1,364


Cumbernauld
1,213


East Kilbride
4,364


Livingston
746

Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister aware that those figures represent a doubling of the waiting lists in East Kilbride and Irvine, and a lengthening of the lists in the other new towns? Does he accept that the lengthening of the lists and the failure to build sufficient houses in the new towns are his responsibility and are a direct result of Government policy for the new towns? Will he tell the House what he proposes to do to shorten the lists and to provide sufficient houses within the new towns?

Mr. Lang: I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the lists should shorten. There are 4,300 public and, more importantly, private sector houses being constructed in the

new towns. The development corporations' funding programmes for the current year add up to some £40 million, the figure for East Kilbride being £17 million.

Self-governing Hospitals

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he has received any recent representations from the British Medical Association on self-governing hospitals.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I was interested to see that the British Medical Association in Scotland is now responding more positively to the proposed self-governing hospitals or NHS trusts and has offered to help us with monitoring their success.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a welcome change of heart on the part of the BMA, but is it not strange that the Labour party, which believes in devolution, does not believe in devolving powers down to the general hospitals from the health boards?

Mr. Forsyth: I think that my hon. Friend is being a little unfair. I think that the BMA is beginning to realise the opportunities that the White Paper offers for giving doctors more say in the management of hospitals and for expanding services to patients. The only consistency that my hon. Friend should look for among Labour Members is that of always being against what the Government do, whether or not it is in the interests of patients.

Steel Industry

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet Strathclyde regional council and district councils from Lanarkshire to discuss the implications for local government services of the future of the steel industry in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: I will shortly be meeting councillor McGarry of Strathclyde regional council and others concerned about the future of Ravenscraig.

Mr. Clarke: Does the Secretary of State accept that his replies to earlier questions about steel were widely at variance with the reply that I received on Thursday from his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is sitting beside him now, when she made it clear that commercial considerations alone are what matter and that the golden share will not be used by the Government in defence of steel industry jobs? Does the Secretary of State accept that if he fails to persuade the Cabinet to fight for the future of the Scottish steel industry, he has a clear duty to offer his resignation?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is, uncharacteristically, totally confused. The golden share to which he referred is an opportunity for the Government to be involved only if there is an attempt, through a proposed takeover of British Steel, to increase a holding in the company to more than 15 per cent. The golden share does not give the Government any power to involve themselves in the operational matters of British Steel. With regard to the other aspect of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Government share the hon. Gentleman's view that British Steel should keep to its commitment to continue steel making in Scotland at least until the mid-1990s.

Panama

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the American activities in Panama and on the safety of British citizens.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We welcome the establishment of democratic government in Panama. We fully support the American action to remove General Noriega, which was undertaken with the agreement of the leaders who clearly won the elections held last May. Noriega's arbitrary rule was maintained by force. We and many others have repeatedly condemned Noriega and called for the election result in Panama to be respected. Every peaceful means of trying to see the results of the democratic elections respected had failed.
We have been in touch with the British charge d'affaires in Panama. So far as he has been able to establish, there have been no British casualties. The embassy has advised British residents to remain in their homes until the situation becomes clearer.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the Secretary of State be more forthcoming about the position of British subjects? Is the embassy in touch with them? Does it know where they are and can it guarantee their safety? Will they be given assistance to return home if that is what they want to do?
There is no doubt that General Noriega is a corrupt dictator and that Panama will be better off without him. Will the Secretary of State answer my following questions?
Under what provision of the canal treaty have United States forces intervened? If it is that relating to the smooth operation of the canal, can the Americans offer guarantees that the canal will continue to operate smoothly? Under what provision of the United Nations charter have the United States forces intervened? If the United States is citing section 51 of the charter, has it reported its action to the Security Council as a section 51 action? If the death of a United States service man triggered off the action, does the intervention qualify as self-defence under section 51? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kaufman: If so, does the Foreign Secretary believe that the deaths of 50 people, including nine American service men, justified the action—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members please to desist from private conversations.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the United States regard General Noriega's statement that a state of war existed between the United States and Panama as a declaration of war? Is this an action of war, a police action, or an action of self-defence?
We ask these questions because any action of this kind, if it is to be justified internationally, must stand up to international scrutiny. Noriega's crimes are to be condemned, but any action that is taken against Noriega must thoroughly justify itself. So far, no such justification has been provided.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman asks first about the British community. There are about 450 of them. Of course, the position on the ground is still obscure. There are no plans for evacuating them at present, but, obviously, our charge d'affaires is keeping an eye on matters and will do his best to offer them such advice and protection as they may need.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's main point, the President of the United States has stated that he took action only as a last resort. He gave four reasons: to protect American lives; to defend democracy; to arrest an indicted drugs trafficker; and to defend the integrity of the Panama canal treaty. That is the President's statement.
The right hon. Gentleman is right: no one can possibly accurately describe General Noriega as a romantic victim of oppression or as a symbol of legality. There was an election. There is no doubt of the result of that election. That result was overturned. There has been a clear threat to United States lives, including the recent death of an American officer and a statement from Noriega that Panama was in a state of war with the United States. Those seem to Her Majesty's Government to be strong and sufficient reasons.

Mr. David Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend understand that the people of Panama are very peace-loving and gentle and that, above everything else, they value their freedom? One thing that they have expressed to me time and again is their desire to be free from the military Government of their country. Above all, they look for freedom from American interference. The new Government will be yet another Government imposed upon the people of Panama by the American Government.
Will my right hon. Friend tell the Americans that the people of Panama, now that they have a Government who are free from the military dictatorship of General Noriega and the possibility of an election, also want freedom from American interference in Panama?

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has the background correct. President Endara and the two vice-presidents were not selected by the United States Administration; they were elected by the people of Panama last May. Also, 279 independent observers from 21 countries, including at least one Member of this House, after observing the elections in Panama last May, formally declared that the election was overwhelmingly won by the Opposition alliance headed by President Endara. From what President Bush has been saying to the American people today, it is clear that the Americans have their rights under the treaty, but they have no desire to impose a Government on Panama, nor have they done so in this case.

Mr. Michael Foot: When the President of the United States spoke to the Prime Minister this morning about this matter, which item of the United Nations charter did he cite as the authority under which he acted? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that for the United States President to act as judge and executioner in his own cause and in the cause of his country is a plain defiance of the United Nations charter? Do the British Government really intend that this shame should be repeated at the Security Council? Are we to stand up for the charter or to humiliate ourselves once again by supporting the United States' action?

Mr. Hurd: In his conversation with my right hon. Friend, the President expounded the action that is being taken on the same lines as he then made it public when speaking to the American people. The right hon. Gentleman is on the wrong side in this matter—he is on the wrong footing. It is not a question of the United States intervening to impose a Government. A Government were elected but that election was set aside—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is listening, but these are the facts. Independent observers, of a type of which the right hon. Gentleman is always much in favour, observed the election and upheld the result. However, it was then set aside.
Constant efforts have been made—not just by the United States, but by many others also—to have the democratic results restored, but all those efforts have failed. More recently, an American officer has been murdered, threats and attacks have been made on others and General Noriega has declared that his country must be regarded as in a state of war with the United States. Having added up those considerations, they appear to us to be strong and sufficient.

Mr. Steve Norris: Having led a delegation into the interior of Panama to supervise the recent election, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will accept it from me that two statements are clear beyond peradventure? The first is that the opposition, led by Mr. Endara won an overwhelming victory, and the second is that, however much it may disappoint Opposition Members, far from sentiments of anti-Americanism, we received frequent expressions of sentiment that the United States must help the Panamanian people to secure the democracy that they so deeply wanted. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we give Mr. Endara and his budding Government every support in the most difficult days that they are surely going to face?

Mr. Hurd: I had hoped that my hon. Friend would be in his place, because it was he who joined observers from other countries to observe the election. From his personal experience, he has corroborated the points that I was trying to make. Of course it is regrettable and tragic that there should be loss of life on such occasions, but many people have already died as a direct result of the brutal and arbitrary rule of General Noriega. I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. We wish President Endara and his democratically elected Government every success in steering Panama out of this tragic chapter in its history.

Dr. David Owen: We support the United States action, but do so under the terms of the United Nations charter that relate to self-defence. Whatever the provocation, is it not a vital principle, always worth upholding, that countries should invade others only under the terms of international law? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, having had a declaration by General Noriega of a state of war between the two countries and having had threats to the lives of American service men who had every right to be in Panama, it is under the terms of the charter that the Americans should now rest their case, not on the restoration of democracy, however desirable?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is right to stress the two latter points, on which, as I have said, we rest our belief that the reasons were strong and sufficient. However,

one cannot get away from the political context, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would want us to do so. We are not talking about a military ruler being imposed by the United States; we are talking about a military ruler being deposed and a democratically elected president being able to take up his position.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation in Panama at present is an absolute tragedy? When the rest of Latin America is returning to democracy, is it right that Panama should be left under a jumped-up thug financed by drug money? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the United States should be congratulated if it were to succeed, as it did in Grenada, in restoring democracy, removing tyranny and then withdrawing?

Mr. Hurd: It is certainly the United States' aim, which we entirely share, that democracy in Panama should be restored. Fortunately, there was an election with a clear result which was attested by international opinion, so it is not a matter of choosing somebody from a group of Panamanian politicians and having to ask, "Is he the right man, or is he not?" We are talking about a person who was elected along with his two vice presidents. It amazes me that it should be thought undemocratic to restore democracy.

Mr. Tony Banks: What attitude would Conservative Members have taken if that action had been taken by the Soviet Union in a sovereign country? However the right hon. Gentleman dresses it up, the American invasion of Panama City is an act of naked aggression against the sovereignty of that country. He knows that that is true. Whatever he might think of General Noriega, to describe the Noriega regime as a reign of terror is grotesque in the light of what is happening in Romania, what happened in Tianamen square and the death squad activities in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.
When will the Government insist that the United States of America begins to act like a civilised nation upholding the United Nations treaty? When will the Government stop acting as apologists for every act of aggression perpetrated by the United States?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is well astray. In the long-distant past, under policies now abandoned, the Soviet Union did intervene in eastern Europe—not to uphold a democratically elected Government but to suppress it. Our condemnation of that action was clear and absolute, under different Governments at the time. Now, fortunately, that policy has changed. There is no parallel with the position of the United States.

Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. Friend recall that our American allies were not exactly helpful when we faced a crisis over the Suez canal? May I say how glad I am that, with the future of a great international waterway at stake, we are better allies to them than they were to us?

Mr. Hurd: There is a great deal of history in a special relationship, and my right hon. Friend remembers most of it. We are faced now not with history or with reminding people of events long past, but simply with common-sense


practicalities and, I think, the morality of the present position. The considerations that we weighed up brought us to the conclusion that the American action was justified.

Mr. David Steel: The Foreign Secretary is propounding a strange doctrine—that if the cause is good, the action must be right. Does he recall that, at the time of the invasion of South Georgia, the Government relied heavily and properly on the rule of international law? Where is the principle of the rule of international law in this affair?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, is at odds with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who drew attention to the rules of article 51 of the United Nations charter; reminded us that an American colonel had been murdered and that there had been threats against others; and pointed out that a few days ago General Noriega declared that his country should be considered to be in a state of war with the United States.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend recall that during a recent speech, and while waving a machete, General Noriega declared war on the United States? Can my right hon. Friend explain how it could possibly be in the interests of this or any other country for Panama and its important waterway to remain in the hands of an utterly corrupt regime and a dictator who is a psychopath, a drug trafficker and a flouter of the democratic will of his own people?
How can the Labour party, in its hostility to the United States, find it possible to praise almost anybody, including Noriega, just to make its own point?

Mr. Hurd: The Labour party stance on these matters appears to become more and more eccentric. We are not concerned just with the strategic importance of Panama, although that is undoubted. For several years, efforts have

been made by the United States, by democracies in central and southern America and by the international community to deal with the problem. Those efforts were made in good faith but have not been successful.
The moment clearly came, in the judgment of the President of the United States, when other action was required. It was justified by the election results and by the declaration of General Noriega to which my hon. Friend referred. We believe the action to be justified.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Listening to the hyperbole of Conservative Members, one could be forgiven for believing that they had bitterly condemned Noriega's Government during the past decade. Does the Secretary of State recognise that, until 1986, the United States awarded prizes to Noriega for his work against drugs and that, as recently as 1986, Interpol held conferences in Panama in recognition of the work done there against drugs? Does he recognise that what has happened today has nothing to do with drugs, little to do with the personality of General Noriega and everything to do with an American determination to renege on the Panama canal treaty? Does he recognise that to support military action aimed at creating the circumstances in which the treaty democratically arrived at by Torrijos and Carter can be reneged upon is a dangerous precedent for this country?

Mr. Hurd: It is not a question of reneging: the hon. Gentleman gives a phoney account of what occurred. By his own admission, for several years the true nature, character and villainy of General Noriega's regime have been apparent to everyone. Elections in Panama this year were not cooked. Noriega lost them and overturned the result. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman makes excuses.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time. We must move on to the statement on Hong Kong.

Hong Kong

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about our proposals to improve confidence in Hong Kong.

Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after the statement.

Mr. Hurd: The confidence of the people of Hong Kong is at a low ebb. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President told the House on 6 June about the traumatic effect in Hong Kong of what happened in Peking in June, and reported to the House on 5 July after he had paid a visit to the territory. Many hon. and right hon. Members have themselves visited Hong Kong since June, and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs gave a lucid account of the problem in Hong Kong in its report of 28 June.
We must do all that we can to build a secure future for Hong Kong on the basis of the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984. We have a continuing responsibility which will involve us in many difficult decisions over the next eight years. In particular, we must provide for those whose services are necessary for the prosperity and effective administration of Hong Kong in the years up to 1997.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Ask President Bush.

Mr. Hurd: The problem of confidence is shown by increasing emigration from the territory, and increasing numbers of people who contemplate leaving—42,000 people have left Hong Kong this year, and 55,000 are expected to leave next year. [Interruption.] A growing proportion of these people are those whom Hong Kong can least afford to lose.

Mr. Skinner: Ask President Bush.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Foreign Secretary. We cannot have a running commentary. It interrupts our proceedings. I ask the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to desist.

Mr. Hurd: This haemorrhage of talent puts at risk the competitiveness of Hong Kong's economy, the efficiency of its public service, the effectiveness of its education system—in short, its future.
Many of those who are leaving Hong Kong would not do so if they could obtain the assurance of right of abode in the United Kingdom. As hon. Members know from statements by the Prime Minister and other right hon. Friends, we have been working on a scheme to give such assurances to a limited number of key people and their dependants in the public and private sectors. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee recommended such a scheme in its report in June, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President told the House on 5 July that we would provide one. I can now explain to the House the conclusions we have reached.
We aim to give such people the confidence to remain in Hong Kong so that they can continue to make their contribution to the success and prosperity of the territory.

We have to weigh in the balance our ability to accept the individuals concerned for settlement in this country, should that ever be necessary. We have to set this reality against our desire to be as effective as possible in restoring confidence in Hong Kong.
If, as has often been suggested, we gave the right of abode to all British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong, we could, if that right was exercised, create unacceptable strains here. If, on the other hand, we kept the scheme too narrow, it would fail in its purpose and, at the end of the day, we might be faced with a much more severe problem.
After careful, detailed consideration over several months, we have concluded that the assurance to be given should take the form of full British citizenship, which would be awarded to recipients without their having to leave Hong Kong. The scheme will cover a maximum number of 50,000 households.
Not all the assurances would be distributed initially: in order to spread the administrative load and to give opportunities for those who may move into key positions in Hong Kong in later years, we shall hold back a proportion of the allocations for later in the life of this scheme. The best current estimate of the total numbers of people, including dependants, who might receive British citizenship in this way is 225,000. The scheme would cease by 1997. It is thus strictly limited in scope and time.
Beneficiaries will be selected on the basis of a points system, which will embrace people from a wide range of walks of life in Hong Kong. It will cover professional and business people, people working in educational and health services, and those with particular technical and managerial skills, as well as those in the public and disciplined services. The decisive criteria will be the value of the individuals' service to Hong Kong and the extent to which people in that category of employment are emigrating.
Provision will also be made within the overall total for those who, by virtue of their position, may find themselves vulnerable in the years ahead. Long service with British institutions in Hong Kong will be taken into account, so will knowledge of the English language.
In addition to this scheme, but again within the total numbers I have given, the Government propose to introduce a special measure designed to help companies and institutions in Hong Kong to retain their key personnel. We intend to reduce substantially the period of residence in this country which employees of such organisations would have to fulfil in order to achieve settled status and later citizenship. For those accepted on the scheme, employment or service in Hong Kong together with a period of residence in the United Kingdom would, after a total period of five years, result in citizenship. The companies and institutions concerned would arrange secondments of key personnel for work or training in the United Kingdom for relatively short periods of time, thereby minimising any disruption to their work in Hong Kong.
We intend to introduce the necessary legislation at the earliest opportunity which will provide for the grant of citizenship to beneficiaries under the scheme in both the public and private sectors.
Although this is a British responsibility, and one which we do not shirk, Hong Kong is an international centre, with huge international investment. Its major trading partners have a strong interest in Hong Kong's continuing


stability and prosperity. Some countries have already found ways to give Hong Kong people assurances without their having to leave Hong Kong. It is clearly for us to take the lead, and I have set out our specific commitments. We shall now be asking our partners and allies to follow this lead.
I emphasise two final points. First, our proposals will be restricted to Hong Kong and the unique problem which we face there. They will have no relevance to other people elsewhere, and the principles of the British Nationality Act 1981 will remain intact. Second, they are designed not to encourage immigration into this country, but to persuade to remain in Hong Kong those whom we need to retain there if our last substantial colony is to pass successfully through the final eight years of British rule.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that on 5 July I made absolutely clear the view of Her Majesty's Opposition about the right of abode here? I said in this House:
The Opposition believe that it would not be right to offer any commitment to Hong Kong British dependent territory passport holders on the right of entry into the United Kingdom or the right of abode here.
I added:
I state clearly that the Opposition are against the creation of special favoured categories based on status or affluence." —[Official Report, 5 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 312–13.]
For six months no one can have been in any doubt about our position. This afternoon the Foreign Secretary cited in his support the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. However, that Committee did not recommend his scheme, but specifically stated, under the recommendation of its own scheme, that the British Nationality Act 1981 would not be amended. What is more, it recommended use of the Home Secretary's discretion under section 4(5) of the Act. In this House on 5 July I suggested that vulnerable Crown servants could be helped by the use of the Home Secretary's discretion under the Immigration Act 1971.
On the basis of the scheme which he has put forward today, the Foreign Secretary has come to the worst way of fulfilling what he regards as his commitment. He has not worked out what he believes are essential categories and then decided to legislate on them, but thought of a number, haggled about it with the Home Secretary and been beaten down. He now offers that number to the House and says that it will be filled on the basis of a points system.
Such a system is inherently unworkable, invidious and divisive. How are the points to be weighted? How are they to be allocated? Who will allocate them? Will all heads of households in Hong Kong be invited to be considered? If not, how are those to be considered to be selected? Are they to be interviewed individually? For the British language qualification, are there to be tests? Will they be written or oral? How will points be allocated on the basis of the value of an individual's service—a highly subjective criterion? How will points be allocated on the basis of propensity to emigrate and of vulnerability? How will points be allocated on length of service to British institutions—and which institutions?
All hon. Members whose local authorities operate a points system for the operation of dwellings know what bitterness and dissatisfaction such a system arouses. How

much more bitterness and envy will be aroused by a points system which decides who will receive the most prized possession of all—a British passport?
Does the Foreign Secretary believe that it is proper for a British passport to be allocated, not on clearly established criteria which everybody can understand, but on the basis of the accumulation of a number of points allocated on a subjective basis to the arbitrarily chosen number of 50,000 people placed in a queue? How will the 50,001st person in that queue feel, and how will others feel? Far from improving confidence, as the Foreign Secretary claims that he wishes the system to do, it will arouse doubt and uncertainty because no one will be sure whether he or she qualifies until the laborious process has been completed.
If the scheme is embodied in an Act, a Labour Government, on coming to office, will examine how far it has gone and how it has worked—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kaufman: A Labour Government will not be bound to continue it, but first we shall seek to prevent such a scheme from becoming law. We shall oppose legislation which is not only elitist and discriminatory but which, in our view, is wrong in principle.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that we could be in no doubt about the position of the Opposition. It is perfectly true that we are in no doubt about what they are against. As he said, the Opposition have made it clear that they are against the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who argued wrongly that everyone who had a United Kingdom dependent territories passport should be given the right of abode.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is against categories, but I am not sure what he is in favour of. He must know, because he has visited Hong Kong, the overwhelming feeling not only in the public service but in the private sector that unless there is a scheme of this sort—of course they would like the numbers to be bigger—the lifeblood will gradually drain out of Hong Kong.
People in key positions in Hong Kong—the right hon. Gentleman entirely neglected the private sector, which was absurd—are telling their employers that they want to stay. They say that their homes, positions and lives are in Hong Kong, but that they want some sense of assurance: if they belonged to a French company, the French would give them a French passport, but as they work for a British company they have no such assurance.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have not been bashing out this difficult matter. It has been worked out between the main Departments for many months and it has involved different people. Some newspapers today said that I had won the argument; some said that I had lost it. The point is that we have eventually worked out what we believe to be the most sensible balance between our desire for good race relations and harmony in our cities—that leads us to reject the SLD proposal—and our strong feeling that the House and the Government have a continuing duty of responsibility to the people of Hong Kong.
The scheme involves a points system, and no one pretends that it will be easy to devise or administer it. The right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities as the Bill goes through the House to examine how the points system will operate, but basically assurances will be given


to no more than 50,000 heads of households. Some of those assurances will be held back, for the obvious reasons that I have explained.
The figures will be distributed by categories of employment in the private and public sectors, and then the points will be awarded and the passports allocated accordingly. The scheme will be operated through the governor, the legal responsibility being that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
We are not amending the 1981 Act, which provides the correct basis for the nationality law of this country. We are faced with a temporary—but quite long-term—and unique problem in our last major colony. It is a problem that will not go away and that is most sensibly tackled on the lines that I have described.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has made a responsible and sensible decision which will help the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong? Is not one of the main problems about the existing schemes run by countries such as Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom the fact that they require a period of residence in those countries before the acquisition of nationality, thus obliging people to leave Hong Kong and accentuating the Hong Kong brain drain? Is not one of the main advantages of my right hon. Friend's proposal the fact that people who qualify under these arrangements will be able to remain in Hong Kong and contribute to its prosperity?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who knows Hong Kong well, but who also knows well this country and his constituents. He knows very well, but was too polite to say, that the scheme and the numbers will be regarded in Hong Kong as being considerably too small. However, I believe that they will also be accepted as being likely to bring about the result at which we are aiming—to enable the kind of people on whom the colony depends to remain making their contribution to that colony.
My right hon. Friend is perfectly right in thinking that we examined various options. We examined an option that, in purely parliamentary terms, would have been easier. No primary legislation guarantees, or declaration offers, a right of abode. My right hon. Friend pointed out the trouble about that. For the assurance to be turned into citizenship, which is what most of the people concerned want, would require those people actually to come here. Therefore, that would, as it were, maximise the incentive to come here.
The point about the citizenship scheme requiring primary legislation is that it will not do that. It will enable the key people I am talking about to receive the assurance in the form of United Kingdom passports without leaving Hong Kong and the jobs that it is very important that they should continue to do.

Mr. David Steel: Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House how many of the 42,000 people who, according to the statement, have left Hong Kong this year came to settle in Britain? If I am right in thinking that it was a very small percentage of the total, does not that give the lie to the fear that has been put about—that 3·5 million people are sitting in Hong Kong desperate to come to Britain? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that is not the case and that it is the responsibility of the British Government to create the

conditions in which those 3·5 million people can continue to live in prosperity in Hong Kong itself—which is what they wish?
By that standard, does the Foreign Secretary accept that, in our judgment, his scheme will fail to provide that assurance and, unhappily, will also involve so many arbitrary points where X will be chosen instead of Y—inevitably, by the nature of the scheme, which is also very unacceptable? There will be deep dismay in Hong Kong, deepened only by the statement of the official Opposition.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is correct on his first point. I do not have the figures, but I believe that one would find from them that most of those who left Hong Kong went to countries such as Australia and Canada. That is not our purpose. Our purpose is that they should continue as headmasters, engineers or professional people in running the colony. Any selective scheme requires something like a points system. If the right hon. Gentleman is endorsing the proposition of the leader of his party for a total grant of the right of abode, he is being totally logical but perfectly unrealistic.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Does my right hon. Friend understand how much I regret having to say that I disagreed with almost everything that he said and agreed with almost everything that was said by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) from the Opposition Front Bench?
Can my right hon. Friend say whether or not the pledge that we have given for the last four general elections—that there will be no further large-scale immigration—still stands?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend knows that, over the past four years, as Home Secretary I spent a lot of time trying, with his full support, to plug loopholes and to keep our immigration control strict and fair. I earned a good deal of obloquy from Opposition Members for doing so. I do not need any education on the importance of strict immigration control for entry into this country.
The purpose of our scheme is to persuade those who are key to running Hong Kong to remain abiding by their professions in that country. I believe that our scheme is apt to succeed in that.
Supposing that my right hon. Friend is right in his fear, and supposing that considerable numbers—

Mr. Skinner: The Foreign Secretary should answer his right hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Hurd: I am answering his question.
Supposing that considerable numbers of people come here, what would be the nature of the penalty that we would be paying? We would be paying the penalty of a sizeable but limited number of professional people, selected for their talent and experience, coming from one of the most successful societies created in the 20th century.
I put one final point to my right hon. Friend. He was a very successful chairman of our party, and he knows its traditions. This is just about the last main chapter in the story of this country's empire. I am rather keen, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is rather keen, that that last chapter should not end in a shabby way.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that no one in the House can beg the problem that will face Hong Kong in the next eight


years? In the same spirit, let me add that it is an open secret that in the past three or four months there have, quite properly, been disagreements and arguments throughout the Government, and the Foreign Secretary should not be surprised when similar disagreements and arguments follow his announcement of the scheme to the House. The fact that hon. Members may disagree with any scheme proposed by the Government does not mean that they do not appreciate Hong Kong's problem.
I wish to ask the Foreign Secretary only one question: is this special measure necessary? Some of the other schemes that have been discussed—the Foreign Secretary mentioned one—would, in my view, constitute a better approach. It is all very well to describe this scheme as a special measure, and as primary legislation, but the Government cannot avoid affecting the British Nationality Act 1981. That is the weakness in the Government's approach, and in the coming months, as the legislation comes before the House and I attack it, I shall not be arguing that the problem does not exist; I shall argue that the Government have set about dealing with it in the wrong way. It would be interesting, incidentally, to know whether the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary will pilot the legislation through the House.

Mr. Hurd: Both Departments have been studying the problem, and they have sent a joint team of officials to Hong Kong. We have done our best collectively, as a Government, to reach what we believe to be the right balance between the considerations that are clearly in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. Parliament will wish to examine the scheme and then make its decision, which is entirely right. In a way, by choosing the citizenship route we have increased the amount of parliamentary scrutiny and debate that would otherwise have been necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman covered a point that I had already touched on. There is already provision—although it would mean a change in stated policy—to expand the discretion of the Home Secretary regarding public servants, but there is nothing comparable in the private sector. My main quarrel with the official Opposition is that they have entirely ignored the crucial importance of the private sector to the running of the life of Hong Kong. A scheme is necessary to deal with the problem, and we believe that the scheme most likely to serve its purpose of keeping people in Hong Kong and not encouraging them to come here is a citizenship scheme. We have therefore decided that the most straightforward approach is the presentation of a Bill to the House.

Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend reassure us that the sole, or central, aim of his proposals is to anchor people in Hong Kong for years ahead and not to encourage them to come here? Does he accept that if the success of this or a similar policy is undemined and confidence collapses in Hong Kong—as it may well do—this country may be faced with an immigration challenge, and with the arrival of refugees in numbers exceeding the worst fears of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for which they would have to take some of the blame?
Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether any thought has been given to the tiny number of non-ethnic Chinese, including the Hong Kong Indians—I believe that there are

about 1,500 families in all—who will not be accepted as citizens after 1997? They once thought that they were citizens of the United Kingdom; unless we do something, they will become citizens of nowhere.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend's first point is correct. We are anxious—as, indeed, they are—that those people should continue to ply their professions in Hong Kong, and the main aim of our scheme is to enable them to do so.
My right hon. Friend's second point is also right. In answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), I acknowledged that, in my own experience, it was right that, for the sake of good relations between communities in this country, immigration control should be strict as well as fair. If, however, because of political difficulties, we fail to make the necessary decisions about Hong Kong, now and in the years ahead—and I warn the House that they will be several and difficult—we shall ultimately have a refugee problem on our hands. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] That is a statement of fact. We shall have a refugee problem on our hands that will make the numbers that we are discussing today seem relatively insignificant.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Secretary of State may not be aware of the close relationship that has developed between Northern Ireland and many families in Hong Kong in the past decade. Many thousands of Hong Kong citizens now live in Northern Ireland, and they have turned out to be first-class and welcome people in the Province. They provide employment in the catering industry and electronics, and many Hong Kong families now send their children to boarding schools in Northern Ireland and to the two universities.
For years the United Kingdom has been keen to stand by its relationship with Hong Kong, within the old British empire and now, in the Commonwealth. We face the sensitive problem of 1997, and it would be an outrage for the United Kingdom to shirk its responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that, when the legislation is presented to the House, the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party will look upon it sympathetically.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Member.

Mr. George Gardiner: My right hon. Friend's statement fills me with foreboding for the future of race relations in Britain. How will he explain to the ethnic minorities who already live in Britain, many of whom have lived here for a great number of years, that we have to maintain strict controls on the permissions granted to their relatives when, at the same time, we have amended the law to create preferential class treatment for the Hong Kong Chinese?

Mr. Hurd: I shall explain it on the grounds that I have already given to the House. My hon. Friend knows Hong Kong, and he knows the difficulties and the problems that we have to wrestle with. We are responsible to our constituents, but we are also responsible for supervising and monitoring what the United Kingdom Government and, to some extent, the Hong Kong Government do to steer the colony through the next eight years. We have tried to strike a balance for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, and they are valid reasons.
We have turned down the suggestion that was put to us powerfully by people in Hong Kong and by some


Members of the House, to allow everybody in the colony the right of abode. We did that for the reasons that my hon. Friend has in mind. For the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, we do not feel entitled to say that we will take no action, and there will be no scheme or effort to give assurances to those people who are key to the running of the territory. That would be an irresponsible line to take, and in the long run—perhaps not too long—my hon. Friend and hon. Members who have worries, which I understand, would live to regret it.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that what he has announced today is one law for the rich and another for the poor in Hong Kong and he is prepared to bend and break the British Nationality Act 1981 to achieve that? Will he join me in condemning the words of his right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), which do nothing to help race relations in Britain?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member is wrong. If we were interested simply in extending privileges to the rich, we would have set about it in a different way. We are talking about the public sector. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made that accusation before he saw the scheme, but now that he has considered the proposals, and knows that it is not true, he did not raise that objection today. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has not had the advantage of looking at the proposals for a few minutes, and is therefore repeating the old parrot cries, which are wrong. We are talking about key people in the public service regardless of their capital and affluence —head teachers, civil servants, engineers. The test is their importance to Hong Kong, and the danger to the territory if large numbers of such people left, and not their affluence.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the purpose of the proposal today is to restore confidence in Hong Kong and to enable it to continue successfully and in prosperity through 1997? Therefore, is it not surprising that he has made no mention in his statement of what is probably the most important way to restore confidence in the colony and that is to allow the development of democracy in Hong Kong in the fastest possible way, to ignore the veto attempted by the Chinese Republic, and to ensure that its arrangements—that it dictates after 1997—converge with those that my right hon. Friend and the Hong Kong people may make before 1997? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is the best way in which to restore confidence and that this divisive measure—it is divisive in Britain and in Hong Kong—will not achieve that objective?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend raises a different and important matter. Before long, we shall have to make clear, and inform the House of, our decision about the nature of the democratic content of elections in Hong Kong in 1991. It is clear from the way in which my hon. Friend phrased his question that he knows the difficulties there, the problems of the Basic Law, and our aim to produce continuity before and after 1997. I shall inform the House about our conclusions on that fairly soon, I hope. I think that my hon. Friend is being unrealistic if he supposes that we can continue the successful governance of Hong Kong without a scheme that tackles this nationality problem.
I apologise to the House. I failed to answer an important question about the non-Chinese minority asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). We have considered the matter carefully. They will of course qualify for inclusion in the scheme I have announced. They have assurances that were given to them by Lord Glenarthur in, I think, 1986. We do not think that it would be sensible to expand the number or the total scheme by making a special and different provision for them.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that this is a bad day for the Government, but a quite disgraceful day for the Labour party, which seems bereft of all moral principle and is in a position of shame, being linked to the point of view of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)?
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the House has absolute power over the 3·5 million people in Hong Kong we are talking about, but that some right hon. and hon. Members do not want to exercise any responsibility for them and are prepared to wash their hands of them so that they may be handed over to what is known to be a murderous regime in Peking? Is he aware that, if he is to have our support—to judge from the noises behind him it might be important this time—we shall need assurances that among the vulnerable group he talked about will be journalists and local politicians, who are vulnerable to retaliation from Peking? Will he take this opportunity to demolish the myth that has been going about that the Government and the British state have no unqualified objection to people entering the United Kingdom? Will he confirm that there is a commitment to 1 million people from South Africa under the nationality legislation and to unquantifiable millions from north America, all of them white?

Mr. Hurd: I accept the hon. Member's support without accepting his adjectives or most of his arguments. I have made it clear that we are talking about people who may be vulnerable because they have taken part in the democratic process in some way.

Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend referred to the need for a statement on Hong Kong. Is it not a fact that the United Kingdom has a clear duty, as the governing power in Hong Kong and as co-signatory of the joint declaration, to maintain stability and prosperity there? Is it not also a fact that British and Chinese business quarters in the territory have made it clear that measures similar to these are just what they want to ensure that stability and prosperity?

Mr. Hurd: They would like more, of course; I acknowledge that. We will have to explain why we have pitched on a scheme and on a number which is considerably smaller than the upper end of the scale that was hoped for in Hong Kong. Otherwise, my hon. Friend is perfectly right. Of course the Government and the House have a duty. The House has a long tradition of looking after the interests of those who live under the Crown in different parts of the world. We are coming to the end of that story and, as I said before, I should like to make a reasonable end of it.

Mr. Stuart Bell: How many entry clearance officers does the Foreign Secretary propose to send to Hong Kong? Will there be a primary purpose rule


in the legislation that he will introduce to the House? If there are to be entry clearance officers, will he send some of those from Islamabad, who in the past few years have kept wives from their husbands, children from their fathers, fiancees from their future husbands, and grandchildren from their grandparents and have prevented a host of people who have a right to be here from coming to Britain? Will there not be a new word in the English language—Hurdism, standing for privilege, elitism, professionalism and all those who have wealth and authority as opposed to all those who are poor and underprivileged?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman appears to be advocating the total admission of everybody. No other meaning can be drawn from his question. I wish that the Opposition would get their act together. The accusation that the hon. Gentleman made against me stands up for a second only if he is in favour of admitting everybody; otherwise, it makes no sense at all. Of course the scheme will have to be carefully administered. The dependants selected will be spouses and children under 18; therefore, the question of primary purpose does not arise.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister accept congratulations on standing firm against more than a little pressure from Conservative Members and more than a little hypocrisy from the Opposition? Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary press on with the proposals, fulfil Britain's obligations to Hong Kong, and restore confidence in Hong Kong without forgetting that Britain wishes to play a part in what will be an outstanding success story in future?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The anxieties which have been expressed by Conservative Members are perfectly natural. It would have been surprising had they not been expressed. Conservative Members realise far more clearly than Opposition Members that immigration control which works is essential to decent race relations in Britain. We do not need persuading of that. That is why we have not gone nearly as far as has been suggested by almost everyone in Hong Kong. We have struck the right balance.

Dr. David Owen: Surely the answer to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is that after what has happened in Tiananmen square, long after the Conservative manifesto, honour demands that the House meets the obligation to do more to sustain the prosperity and security of Hong Kong. The scheme that the Foreign Secretary has advanced, which is selective and based on service, has a very good chance of retaining those skilled people beyond 1997, as our responsibilities go beyond that, and ensuring a successful transition to Communist China's control and a successful Hong Kong into the 21st century.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is right. By and large, our imperial story is overwhelmingly honourable and we should try to keep it that way. But in this case honour and self-interest coincide.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend has to choose between his perception—which

I believe is mistaken—of the interests of the people of Hong Kong and the desires of the people of these overcrowded islands whose home he is, I believe, arrogantly, making available. He will understand that people here feel deep resentment after a generation of imposed immigration into Britain. I believe that they will feel that he has chosen the people of Hong Kong, and, although I have the deepest respect for my right hon. Friend, I believe that he will not be forgiven.

Mr. Hurd: It is not a question of the Government choosing the people of Hong Kong over my hon. Friend's constituents; that is not the issue at all. We have struck a balance which we believe is necessary to safeguard an interest of this country, of my hon. Friend's constituents and, in particular, of the Conservative party. I do not think that we would be forgiven—to borrow my hon. Friend's phrase—if we simply took the short-term easy way, pretended that the problem would go away when clearly it will not, and failed to take any action on the lines that I have described. That would not only be wrong but would come back and seriously hit us before too long.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Will the Secretary of State accept—from one speaking as, in the words of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), an imposed immigrant and Member of Parliament—that no Opposition Member has suggested that Britain should play host to 5·5 million Hong Kong Chinese this week or next week? Many Opposition Members and many people outside the House have listened with mounting incredulity as elements on the Tory Back Benches have outbid each other on the subject with sub-Powellite rhetoric.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many people outside the House know that we should not be hearing from the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) if the subject were white South Africans? Many people outside the House are concerned that hon. Members continue to treat the issue for what it is—a unique and difficult issue about how Britain withdraws from its last outpost of the empire with honour, and not in the shabby and shameful way that some Conservative Members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she must ask a question.

Ms. Abbott: The question is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady might be able to ask her question when we have a debate.

Ms. Abbott: Is this an issue of how we withdraw from Hong Kong with honour, or is it, as some Conservative Members would have us believe, an issue of an imminent yellow peril?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady mistakes the position. It is perfectly natural that my right hon. and hon. Friends should express concern and anxiety. I do not think that anyone can seriously criticise them for doing so. Anyone who has followed events in Hong Kong and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President have been saying for months will know what the problem is and how we propose to tackle it. It is perfectly reasonable that people should express their anxieties and concerns. I have not had any complaints or objections of the kind that the hon.
Lady made. Now that we have agreed on a scheme, the Government must show, as I believe we clearly can, that it is better to go ahead with it, to implement it and to offer assurances to key people, as it proposes, rather than to sit back and say, "This is too difficult; we propose to do nothing," and allow our last substantial colony to decline and perhaps slide into chaos.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the subsequent business before the House. As the House well knows, it is a Back-Bench Members' day today, and we have a further statement before reaching that. I shall allow three more questions from each side, and then we must move on. It will be perfectly in order for hon. Members to raise this matter on the Christmas Adjournment motion if they are not called on the statement.

Mr. Michael Alison: Does my right hon. Friend recall the spontaneous generosity with which British people accepted the sudden influx of Ugandan Asian passport holders in 1972 when they were confronted with the terrorism of Amin? Does he agree that his proposals for a new human line of credit, which may never be drawn on fully, to safeguard the future of the citizens of Hong Kong will be accepted by the same British public with the same generosity of spirit?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Of course these are difficult questions, and they stir feelings that have been quite accurately reflected in the House. Nevertheless, we must make decisions and take responsibility. I believe, as does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that they will he much more clearly and sympathetically understood than is being assumed by some people.

Mr. David Young: Will the Minister accept that Opposition Members and others have constituents with relatives in Hong Kong? Will he say how he thinks confidence can be brought to a society by the creation of first and second-class citizens and apartheid by passport? Will he say what will happen to the rest of the community if the Chinese people's army moves in, because he has said that that is the only occasion on which the passports will be used? Is the majority of the community to be abandoned by the Tory party?

Mr. Hurd: The scheme is of course only part of the total policy but it is an essential part. We will not be able to keep Hong Kong in security and prosperity without a scheme of that kind. Our main effort must be to enable the colony to go forward on the basis of the joint declaration, with all that that means.

Mr. William Powell: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the true key to the future stability and prosperity of Hong Kong lies in Peking? Only if the Chinese Government are able to show enthusiastic confidence in the future of Hong Kong will proper stability be retained. Will he also accept that the scheme he announced today will go some little way to providing reassurance, pending the wider support that Peking must show for the future of Hong Kong?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his first point. We must not be passive but constantly active in

seeking to show the People's Republic of China that it is in its interests, as well as those of the people of Hong Kong, that the joint declaration should be fully honoured in the spirit as well as the letter.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What reflections, thoughts or advice come from the place where the Secretary of State once worked—our embassy in Peking? Does he accept that what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) was far too facile, and ought we not to recognise that the complex position that arose after Tiananmen square cannot just be described as a "murderous regime"? In those circumstances, ought we not to remember that the history of China is that China has stuck to its international promises and there is no reason to believe that it will not do so in future, whatever the internal difficulties, in relation to 1997?

Mr. Hurd: The House has expressed its views on what happened in Tiananmen square, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would dissent from what was said. We must have important and continuous dealings with the People's Republic, for the reasons that I gave in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell).

Mr. Ray Whitney: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, until 1962, more than 1·5 million residents of Hong Kong enjoyed the right to a full British passport and to abode in this country, and that relatively few of them exercised that right? That supports strongly the belief expressed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that, unless things go badly wrong in Hong Kong, very few of the people under discussion will exercise the rights that he has announced. If things go badly wrong, we have a strong moral obligation to help.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for the way he expressed his view.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Why does not the Foreign Secretary admit that, although there are two tenable logical positions that the Government could have adopted, there is only one tenable principle position? The two tenable, logical positions are eiher that everyone should be given the right to come to Britain or that no one should. The one tenable principle position is that everyone should be given the right to come to Britain.

Mr. Hurd: That comment comes from below the Gangway. It was specifically repudiated above the Gangway a few weeks ago. This matter will now be opened up for further discussion. The Government's measures will be discussed, and so will the total lack of coherent Labour party policy.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I give an undertaking to the hon. Members I have not called that I will bear them in mind when the matter is next discussed, as I am sure it will be.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take it after the statement.

Fisheries Council

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
Together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I represented the United Kingdom at the recent Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 18 and 19 December.
The stocks in the waters most important to us are seriously depleted and there is no way in which a responsible Community or Government could seek to allow fishing on a scale which would further endanger the future. Therefore, no package could have been agreed which would provide all the fishing opportunities that fishermen would like. Our purpose was therefore to gain the best possible opportunities for British fishermen compatible with a responsible conservation policy.
To that end, our first aim was to maintain the principle of relative stability and thereby guarantee our fishermen their fair share of community fishing opportunities. The key test of that was the allocations under the second Greenland protocol. I am pleased to inform the House that these have been made fully in accordance with that fundamental principle, despite the strong opposition of certain member states.
Our second priority was to argue against the Commission's proposals which would have set the total allowable catches and therefore British quotas below the figures recommended by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas—the scientific body to which we all adhere. We succeeded in obtaining our aims fully in respect of haddock and largely in respect of cod, the two main edible species. In the case of whiting, we negotiated changes which gave us a much improved quota.
Our third priority was to ensure that the special arrangements that protect our most vulnerable fishing communities under the Hague preference would be continued.
From an isolated position, we again secured recognition of our Hague preference for North sea haddock, obtaining 87 per cent. of the community stock available. That is over 10 per cent. more than we would otherwise have got. As all that comes from allocations of fish which would otherwise have gone to other Community countries, the House will recognise what an important achievement this is.
During the debate last Thursday, we defined our fourth priority as securing a continuing arrangement to safeguard the important mackerel fishery to the north of Scotland. That proved extremely difficult, and most of the last session of the council was devoted to it. We were eventually successful in convincing other member states of the reasonableness of our case and secured the continued flexibility to catch a part of that stock in the North sea.
In total, 17 United Kingdom quotas, including Channel cod, Irish sea herring and west of Scotland and eastern Channel sole, were increased above the level proposed by the Commission. Moreover, we again made a number of useful swaps, bringing advantages, including increased North sea herring and sole as well as extra quantities of a number of stocks off the south-west.
The House made it perfectly clear that both sides were dissatisfied with the agreement initialled by the Commission and Norway, and I was particularly critical of it. It is therefore particularly satisfying that we secured a number of important changes which made possible the increases for our fishermen.
Conservation is the key to increasing opportunities for our fishing industry. Total allowable catches and quotas canot achieve that on their own. Last week, the Government undertook to press the Commission yet again to bring forward improved technical conservation measures. We were supported in that by almost every speaker in the debate last Thursday. I am therefore encouraged by the Commission's commitment to produce proposals on that by the end of July. Following the useful discussions we have had with our industry over recent months, we will also be putting our own ideas to the Commission in the near future.
These are urgent matters, and although we have ensured that the unacceptable proposals for community involvement in our quota management have been withdrawn, we have committed ourselves to take immediate steps to reduce our fishing effort against North sea haddock.
We will also be having an intensive dialogue with our industry to find ways of improving our fisheries management systems so that they encourage rational investment and exploitation.
It is clear that only by working with the industry and harnessing fishermen's own skills and judgment can we hope to secure the necessary improvements in how our fleet prosecutes its fishing opportunities. Centralised planning and subsidy are certainly not going to produce satisfactory results.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said in the House last week, a decommissioning scheme would not be a sensible use of the taxpayers' money. Moreover, subsidising the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels serves in general to distort rather than encourage sensible investment decisions. In future, subject to clearance with the Commission in accordance with article 92 of the treaty of Rome, we plan to continue to grant aid essential safety improvements for fishing vessels. Otherwise, we intend to restrict vessel grant aid to those cases where it is needed to back up Community grant aid.
We have shown our commitment to the industry by our determination at this week's Council to preserve the fundamental principles of relative stability and our Hague preference and to secure the best possible outcome for our industry consistent with conservation. That is what the House asked us to do. We have achieved it in almost every particular.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I am sure that the Minister will accept that the Opposition recognise the importance of conservation measures, and that quota figures must be based on scientific advice if fish stocks are to be protected and improved. To suggest otherwise—that advice and quotas should be ignored—would be totally irresponsible.
We welcome the fact that the agreed quotas are better in most cases than those that the Commissioner was seeking, although the figure for cod was less than was hoped for. We also welcome the deals on access to


Greenland waters, the mackeral quotas and the improvements on Channel cod quotas after the swaps are taken into account.
Overall, however, the deal still represents major problems and some notable failures which will cause severe difficulties for the fishing fleet. Why have we done so badly with the cod quota in north Norway? Does the Minister accept that that will severely hit what is left of our deep-water freezer fleet? Why did the Minister manage to get the maximum available quota—according to scientific advice—for haddock, but fail to get that for cod?
Will the Minister confirm that he agreed to allocate 500 tonnes from the United Kingdom cod allocation to the Danes? Is that right? Was that a trade-off as part of a deal to obtain Hague preference levels? Does the Minister accept that, with the industry in severe difficulties, a firm package of conservation measures is required to be drawn up by the Ministry to reduce the discard levels by increasing mesh size and type, to protect juvenile fish?
Does the Minister also accept that firm policing measures of agreed quota are vital? Can he confirm that expenditure on fishery protection in Scotland decreased from £6·14 million last year to £5·4 million this year, according to the provisional figures? Does he agree that that does not imply that there are adequate protection measures?
I am sure that the whole industry will be disappointed to hear the Minister rejecting central planning and the decommissioning scheme. It is not the industry's fault that it is at the mercy of Community planning and regulations. A free market approach to the industry struggling to survive this period would lead to bankruptcies, redundancies and the undermining of the whole fishing industry.
The industry needs a planned structure of support. Last year £21·8 million was spent in aid for building and modernising the fishing fleet, even though the Ministry knew that there was over-capacity in the fleet. Why cannot some of that money be switched to a proper decommissioning scheme, taking into account the problems of horsepower and all the other problems? I believe that the industry is playing its part in trying to adapt to these difficult times. The Government must accept that they also have a responsibility to assist and protect the industry on which so many jobs and communities depend.

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) for his rather grudging comments about our successes. The industry was rather more generous and said that we came away with the best possible deal. I heard that from the industry leaders themselves directly after they had heard details of the deal. We gave details to them as soon as they were complete. The hon. Gentleman must recall our debate last Thursday in which hon. Members did not believe that it would be possible to get the whole agreement with Norway reopened. In fact, we have had it substantially changed.

Dr. David Clark: We asked for it.

Mr. Gummer: Of course the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked me for it. However, if he looks back at what he said last Thursday, he will see that he asked for it as if he did not believe that we would have the determination to do it. He did not believe that it was possible. We did what he asked us to do. It is a bit hard for

the hon. Member for South Shields now to appear to say that we did not get everything on every point that the United Kingdom, among 12 other nations, wanted. We got almost everything we sought, and that is a remarkable achievement.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Minister is the "nearly man".

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who speaks so often from a sedentary position, has not followed or understood the negotiations. That is obvious from that comment.
The United Kingdom has fought for a Common Market policing force. That force has been substantially supported and extended by the United Kingdom. We have spent a great deal more money in recent years on enforcement, but we have spent it more effectively. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has found a number of ways in recent years to improve enforcement, but at lower cost. That seems to be valuable. It is very odd that the Opposition measure expenditure and not efficacy. That is an element of their economic policy which has brought them to rack and ruin for so long.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that the industry was at the mercy of European Community planning. It is not: it is at the mercy of reduced fish stocks. The point of the Community planning is to share out the fish equitably between countries. At a time when we have greater capacity than we can possibly use with the available opportunities, I do not believe that it is sensible to continue to grant-aid the modernisation of that capacity, which only increases it. Therefore, I believe that it is more sensible to do what we are doing.
I have considered the details of the decommissioning scheme, and I believe that the Public Accounts Committee was right. The scheme as it used to be caused exactly the opposite effect from what was intended. Opposition Members believe that we could have a different scheme, but I do not believe that any scheme is the proper way to deal with the problem. To deal with the problem we should have the conservation measures that we will put before the Commission and a more sensible way of dealing with our quota management, both of which factors will be changed considerably. I am sure that Opposition Members will be pleased with what results.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there will be a debate later tonight on the future of the United Kingdom fishing industry. Perhaps detailed questions could be raised in that debate—although I accept that I am not an expert on fishing. If that were the case, perhaps we could reach that debate more rapidly.

Sir Michael Shaw: Mr. Speaker, you will always be welcome in Scarborough.
During the negotiations, was it accepted either that the scientists were consistently wrong in fixing quotas or that the fishermen were wrong in not keeping to the quota system? As a result of that examination, did my right hon. Friend the Minister conclude that enforcement should be better in future? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his tremendously successful period of negotiation. Anyone who has studied the problem must conclude that he has done a first-class job within the limits for our fishermen.
We have a complete haddock quota. Now that that quota is for the country as a whole, will new enforceable arrangements be made to make sure that all our fishermen get their fair share of it?

Mr. Gummer: We shall seek to do the latter in the fairest possible way. On my hon. Friend's original question, we discussed the reasons for the continued decline in the stock. It is our view that there was considerable over-fishing, certainly in earlier years. That has been very much reduced, but there is still a great deal to be done in that direction and in the direction of discards. That is why we must have a real package of conservation measures. I shall hold hon. Members to their words in the previous debate. They said that they would support those conservation measures, even though they will be difficult.

Mr. James Wallace: I give credit where credit is due. In the negotiations, the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends succeeded in achieving success with regard to critical TACs and flexibility on the north of Scotland mackerel fishery, and obtained proposals on conservation measures to come forward next year. However, he will cause great dismay to the industry by effectively jettisoning any plans for decommissioning. He will ask the industry to accept a much reduced fishing effort. How does he propose to manage the reduction in capacity without decommissioning? What will be the effect of his proposals today on meeting the target set under the multi-annual guidance programme? With the exception of safety improvements, vessel grants will be allowed only when the European Community is also giving grant aid. Does that mean that he is handing the Commission responsibility for the future structure of the industry? Is that not an abdication of his responsibility?

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his first comments. Obviously, we would not want to exclude people from European Community grant, because there is no matching grant from the United Kingdom. That is the reason for that decision. On the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said, he will have to watch major changes both in conservation terms and in other proposals that will come forward. A decommissioning scheme would not achieve the ends that he desires. A whole series of different things will achieve those ends. As we discuss matters in the coming months, no doubt we will decide, first in prospect, who is right and then, in retrospect, who was right.

Mr. James Hill: May I be the second hon. Member to congratulate my right hon. Friend on a very worthwhile task? The figures that he has achieved were almost unbelievable only a few days ago. As my right hon. Friend knows, there are two other points to conservation. First, there are rumours from the South Coast Fishermen's Association that French trawlers are still using a boom trawl which scoops up almost any size fish. Secondly, my right hon. Friend's Ministry issues licences from South West Water for the dumping of sludge. That can have harmful effects not only on oyster beds in the Solent but on the coarse fishing around the island.

Mr. Gummer: I assure my hon. Friend that I will take up any information that he gives me about the illegal use

of equipment, particularly as I want the Community to have further and tougher measures on these matters, and we must make sure that they arZe enforced. Sludge is 95 per cent. water. Wherever there is any danger of it having any kind of deleterious effect, my Ministry does not issue a licence. If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind, I shall be happy to look at them. I take a close personal interest in the matter and I am determined that fishing grounds shall not be invaded.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister accept that Opposition Members believe that he has done the best he could, given the very bad hand that he was dealt by the Commission at the outset? Does he accept also that that implies that he is still gambling with the industry? Is he aware that, instead of centralised planning and subsidy, he is offering the restructuring of the fleet by the attrition of bankruptcy, without any regard to the people whose livelihoods depend on the sea, whether on the catching side or on the processing side? Why does the right hon. Gentleman have such a principled objection to subsidy? He is quite prepared to pay farmers under the set-aside scheme, but he is unwilling to help fishermen, people on land and crews by introducing a decommissioning scheme that would take account of their fears and responsibilities?

Mr. Gummer: After his kind comments, I must promise the hon. Gentleman that I would be happy to spend the money if I thought that it was a good way of spending money. But I do not think that it will achieve that end. There are better ways of dealing with this matter. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, apart from this year, in every previous year, although fishing opportunities declined, fishermen have received significantly more from the sale of fish. Therefore, the actual return to fishermen has increased in real terms every year until the present, when the 11 per cent. cut in opportunity was matched by only a 9 per cent. increase in price.

Mr. Donald Thompson: My right hon. Friend will realise that I ask my question with some reluctance. I congratulate him on what he has achieved this year. I congratulate the Government also on the £50 million of taxpayers' money that they have put into the fishing industry every year, regardless. On central planning, I congratulate my right hon. Friend also on beating off the European Community's insistence of the disturbance of relative stability. That is the most important factor. Does he agree that we must keep relative stability?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. I also pay tribute to the Fisheries Ministers in Scotland and England, who, over the past few months, have been preparing for this negotiation. It is only through their work that we have achieved what we did.

Mr. John D. Taylor: It would be churlish not to congratulate the Secretary of State on the general success of the talks in Brussels. He said that there were four members in the United Kingdom ministerial team. Which Minister represented the interests of the Northern Ireland fishing industry in the discussions?
The matter of decommissioning is for another day, but I should like answers to one or two questions relating to the Irish sea. The Minister said that the herring quota has been increased. Is that an increase over the Commission's


proposal or an increase over last year's quota? On whiting in the Irish sea, there was a Commission proposal for a reduction of more than 58 per cent., to 8,300 tonnes. Will the Minister assure us that that has been overcome? He said that there has been an increase in whiting, but does that increase apply to the Irish sea? Until we are provided with actual figures, we will be discussing the matter in the dark. When will we have the actual figures that were decided at the Council meeting?

Mr. Gummer: The actual figures will not be available from the Commission for a couple of weeks. Therefore, I will place in the Library in the next 24 hours, I hope, the figures that will be the provisional figures which we ourselves have worked out in detail in a form that is acceptable to the House. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Commission proposal on whiting in the Irish sea was for a total allowable catch of only 8,300 tonnes as against 18,170 tonnes last year. We got that proposal of 8,000 tonnes increased to 15,000 tonnes. It is not as good as last year's, but it is within scientific advice, and that seemed to us to be the right answer. I am sure that it will help the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
I represented the whole of the United Kingdom in the discussions, and, on every occasion on television and radio, I mentioned the importance to Northern Irish fishermen of this matter.

Mr. David Harris: I add my congratulations to all members of the ministerial team on putting up a tremendous and successful fight on behalf of fishermen in all parts of the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend say something about the impact of the deal on the south-west? Am I right in thinking that, although there has been an increase in the channel cod quota, which we welcome, there has been a minuscule reduction in the sole quota in western waters and that there has been or could be a decrease in the plaice quota? How could that possibly be offset?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. I am using figures that include the swaps that have taken place as a adjunct to these discussions, as they always do. Out of the 24 United Kingdom quotas in the south and south-west for 1990, four have been increased, 13 have been retained at the same level, and seven have been reduced. That is a better outcome than we had feared.
In addition, there has been some increase in Channel cod and sole has been subject to some swaps. I shall give my hon. Friend some details so that he can see exactly how it affects his constituents. The Channel cod TAC is particularly important because we have about 2 per cent. more in the quota although there is a lower TAC. I am sure that that will be a relief to my hon. Friend's fishermen.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Does the Minister recall what was said in last week's debate about the knock-on effects of the quota cuts on the other fishing fleets in other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom that are not directly involved? Bearing that in mind, will he consider directing a serious research effort into the prawn stocks in the Minch to make absolutely sure that in a couple of years we shall not be discussing quota cuts to deal with those stocks in the way that we are discussing cod and haddock today?
On his statement about the diminishing grant for the construction of new vessels, was the right hon. Gentleman

speaking for his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland? If so, will he remember that some of the fleets are not over-capacity but under-capacity and deal with stocks that could bear some more fishing, which means that it would not be wise universally to end all grants for new vessels?

Mr. Gummer: Yes, I am speaking for my right hon. and learned Friend, who is present and will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall certainly look into his point about prawns. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help me in saying to many other fishermen that any improvement that benefits, for example, the Scottish fisheries is important for English fishermen also because it relieves some of the pressure that would otherwise have arisen on the stocks that have not changed.

Mr. Barry Field: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he made any progress on the subjective regulations that were proposed on the judgment of oyster meat quality, which many south coast fishermen believe to be unenforceable? Did my right hon. Friend take up my point about the disparity between the French regulations for the taking of bass and the nursery stocks that he has proposed for the larger size of bass which the south coast fishermen are required to fish? Will he bear in mind the fact that the French are still plundering the nursery stocks in the Channel?

Mr. Gummer: I did not believe that it was the right moment to take up those issues, which might have divided me from putative friends when I was in the business of trying to gather together as much support as possible for the British position. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the French have suggested that they are prepared to take up on bass parallel rules which would be similar to our own. We are seeking to press the Commission to ensure that its package will bring into line a whole series of conservation measures so that our fishermen realise that, when they are asked to take tough measures, they are taking them in common with other fishermen and that other fishermen will not be allowed to have an advantage.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Minister accept that the deal that he has struck will cause enormous difficulties for the fishing industry? On the specific question of haddock, which is almost exclusively a United Kingdom stock and largely a Scottish stock, will the Minister explain why we have to wait another six months for the possibility of conservation measures designed to allow the young fish to escape, which might work, and why we are pursuing the policy of low quotas, which has failed before and will fail again? Why was action on industrial fishing not included on the agenda? Is he aware that his dismissive attitude towards providing assistance for the industry in this its hour of need will not be forgotten by the fishing communities?

Mr. Gummer: I am surprised that, having listened to a statement in which a Minister has brought back all the things that the hon. Gentleman said we would not be tough enough to fight for, he has not had the courtesy to give thanks for those things that have arrived. The industry will notice that, once again, the Scottish National party is carping about such matters, that it never ever gives


credit where credit is due, and that it always proposes a simple answer in which there is no pain. That is why the fishing industry takes no notice of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke): Having known my right hon. Friend for about 20 years, I am not surprised that he has once again proved to be a doughty fighter on behalf of our fishermen. I should like to ask him a specific question that concerns fishermen in Wales and the south-west and especially my fishermen in Milford Haven whom my right hon. Friend came to see last year. I refer to the European Court ruling of 13 December, which overturned parts of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. Did the negotiations take into account the fact that that would have a serious effect on our quota? Did we get more as a result of the hearing?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, but I do not believe that the European Court hearing should concern us overmuch. We should have liked to win on every count, but we won on the majority of counts and we can use that hearing to do a great deal to exclude from our quotas those people who have no business to be fishing them. Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to do what my hon. Friend wants, but in relation to those things that are found to be legal. I hope that the fishermen in my hon. Friend's constituency will recognise that the size of the British fleet should be measured with British boats, and that it should not include those who have nothing to do with Britain. I shall not go firm on any figures about the British fleet until I have managed to remove from the list those who should have never been on it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister consider giving a friendly and efficacious answer to a friendly and efficacious question? On the July marine conservation measures, will the Minister consider sending some of his most experienced inspectors, who on no account should live near the north of Scotland and should preferably come from the south of England, to find out what is really happening in the area of Ullapool, Aultbea and Wester Ross in relation to two things—first, the sand eels which provide so much food for fish, and, secondly, what some fish farmers are doing in letting out effluent, taking cheap corner cuts and sometimes opening the gates when the prices are not right and letting loose fish farm salmon with heaven knows what genetic effect on the Atlantic stocks? Does he accept that this is a serious question and agree that it is something that MAFF should find out about?

Mr. Gummer: I take seriously what the hon. Gentleman has said. If there were truth in either of the points that he has made—I have to say "if", because I have not done the research to which he draws my attention—it would be a serious matter and something on which we should take immediate action. I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall look into the matter to see how best to attest what he has put to me.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations, not only on the outcome of the negotiations but on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr.

Field), which will be extremely welcome to my fishermen in Swanage, Weymouth and Portland, when he said that the French will follow our lead on physical conservation measures? Can he say more about how he will press the rest of our partners in the EEC to take such conservation measures as setting up nursery areas, increasing mesh sizes and reducing the size of the fish that are landed? Has my right hon. Friend had any success with other nations during this round of talks?

Mr. Gummer: The French have already agreed to take action in relation to the Channel, and we are working closely with them? One thing that is noticeable as a result of the agreement is the degree to which Fisheries Ministers throughout Europe have come to be able to work closely together. Therefore, I believe that the common conservation measures that will be proposed will cover most of the things that my hon. Friend wants to cover and that they will receive support throughout the Community. I also hope that they will receive real support in the House from hon. Members of all parties, because they will not be easy measures. It is no good proposing conservation measures as if they were a simple answer that would cause no hurt. They will mean real changes in fishing practice.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Minister accept that the great majority of Scottish Members recognise that the settlement had to be within the terms of the scientific recommendations, and that to urge otherwise in the interests of local populism is irresponsible and would repeat the errors of the past that have cost us dear down to the present time? Will he reconsider his comments in last week's debate about the knock-on effects to which my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) referred, when he said that the effects on other areas of over-fishing by one section of the fleet were not a matter on which the European lead should be accepted, and recognised that there was a need to do something about that? Will he now look closely at the case for establishing regional managemet schemes around the coast? Will the Minister say something about the need to increase mesh sizes and nets? Should that not be at the top of the conservation priority list, not least because I have a net manufacturing interest in my constituency?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right. Conservation measures, mesh sizes and gear and the problems of discards are absolutely top priority. I think that the Commission will reach that conclusion in the urgent report that is to be made by a high level group. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about keeping to the scientific advice. It is not that we need to discard the TACs and quotas, but that we need to underpin them with conservation measures.
It is a serious matter that there are still one or two hon. Members—although only one or two—who propose conservation as an easy alternative to TACs and quotas, when both are very difficult and need to be held together. The hon. Gentleman has a good record of not being populist in these matters.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about regional management of quotas, I have already said that we must entirely reconsider the way in which we manage them. I am not satisfied with the present system, and we must find better ways to do it. Anybody who cares about the


industry would agree with that. I have no doubt that there will be a large number of arguments about how best to do it.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister has repeatedly referred to the scientific advice, but I am sure that he will understand that fishermen in my part of the world, and no doubt in other parts, sometimes wonder about the quality of that advice. Will he be exploring any measures to increase Zthe advice available and the work that goes into forming that advice?
My fishermen feel strongly about the question of regional quotas. Can he tell us about the direction in which he thinks matters may move?

Mr. Gummer: I do not want to elaborate, as I should not like to give credence to the unfortunate view of some fishermen that, if there is any alternative, it means that they will get more fish. The only way for some fishermen to get more fish is for others to catch less. That is the nature of the present shortage of stock. I do not want to give any credence to the belief that some rearrangements will mean that vast stocks of untapped fish will be provided—if that is not mixing about five metaphors.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems faced by his area. I hope that he will accept my invitation to visit Lowestoft, when he will appreciate that the resources necessary for the purpose are provided. Britain plays a very important part in the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas. If there are any specific areas where he thinks we are not doing these things as we should, I am happy to consider them and to judge whether we should be adding to the resources.

Points of Order

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter concerning the Education (Student Loans) Bill. Earlier this afternoon, it was announced that all the clearing banks were to withdraw from the operation of the Government's deeply unpopular Education (Student Loans) Bill. As the participation of the banks has been absolutely central to the administration of the Government's loans scheme, the withdrawal leaves the scheme in total ruin. In the light of the announcement, the Bill must be abandoned. In view of the gravity of today's announcement, Mr. Speaker, do you agree that there must be an immediate oral statement by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates the position. The Bill is not affected one little bit in any respect. Neither the principles, the framework nor the objectives of the scheme are affected, and they will continue as before. The only change is that one area of the mechanics of the scheme we intended to operate cannot now go ahead. That means that we will lose something that was to the benefit of the students—access to branch networks. I regret that.
I thought it right to inform the House immediately I was informed of the decision of the banks. I would have been happy to make an oral statement, but that was not possible because of the congested nature of today's business. However, I am happy to consider, through the usual channels, what else might be done.

Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question whether the abandonment of the Government by the banks is central to the administration of the scheme, as we believe could be argued if there was an oral statement. If there cannot be one this afternoon, for reasons that I understand, will the right hon. Gentleman or the Leader of the House, who is in his place, give a clear undertaking to make an oral statement at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall be happy to consider that request through the usual channels.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 19 JANUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Ian Gow
Mr. James Couchman
Mr. Roy Beggs

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully understand your difficulties in choosing hon. Members to speak on statements. I also understand the privileges afforded to Privy Councillors and, indeed, the practices of the House. On the last three occasions that we have discussed Hong Kong and the Vietnamese refugees and migrants, very much the same list of personnel have been called. While I recognise that there is an element of precedence, I wonder whether just once, for an experiment, you could start at the bottom of the heap—with me?

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman has said is not entirely accurate. If he were to see some of the letters and visits that I receive from Privy Councillors and other distinguished Members after statements, alleging that they are the world's greatest experts and should have been called, I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept that they are not always called.
I say sincerely to the whole House that I do my best to ensure that the limited time of the House is spread as fairly as possible. It is not easy.

BILLS PRESENTED

PENSIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Richard Ryder, Mr. Michael Forsyth, Mr. Roger Freeman and Mr. Alan Howarth, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to certain public service pension schemes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Secretary Fowler, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Waddington, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Newton, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Tim Eggar and Mr. Patrick Nicholls, presented a Bill to make it unlawful to refuse employment, or any service of an employment agency, on grounds related to trade union membership; to amend the law relating to industrial action; to make further provision with respect to the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members; to confer a power to revise or revoke Codes of Practice; to provide for the merger of the Redundancy Fund with the National Insurance Fund; to amend the Education (Work Experience) Act 1973; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Secretary Patten, supported by Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Parkinson, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. John Selwyn Gummer, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. David Trippier and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, presented a Bill to make provision for the improved control of pollution arising from certain industrial and other processes; to re-enact the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 relating to waste on land with modifications as respects the functions of the regulatory and other authorities concerned in the collection and disposal of waste and to make further provision in relation to such waste; to restate the law defining statutory nuisances and improve the summary procedures for dealing with them, to provide for the termination of the existing controls over offensive trades or businesses and to provide for the extension of the Clean Air Acts to prescribed gases; to amend the law relating to litter and make further provision imposing duties to keep public places clear of litter and clean; to amend the Radioactive Substances Act 1960; to make provision for the control of genetically modified organisms; to make provision for the abolition of the Nature Conservancy Council and for the creation of councils to replace it and discharge the functions of that Council and, as respects Wales, of the Countryside Commission; to make further

provision for the control of the importation, exportation, use, supply or storage of prescribed substances and articles and the importation or exportation of prescribed descriptions of waste; to amend the provisions of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 as regards the dumping of waste at sea; to make provision in relation to financial or other assistance for purposes connected with the environment; to make provision as respects superannuation of employees of the Groundwork Foundation and for remunerating the chairman of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council; and for purposes connected with those purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

CONSUMER GUARANTEES

Mr. Martyn Jones, supported by Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. David Porter, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. David Martin, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Richard Alexander and Mr. Douglas French, presented a Bill to provide for consumer guarantees; to amend the law relating to the sale and supply of goods; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

INTEREST ON DEBTS

Mr. Michael Mates, supported by Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Michael Latham, Sir David Mitchell, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Bowen Wells and Sir George Young, presented a Bill to amend the law by making provision for certain debts to carry interest; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

COMPUTER MISUSE

Mr. Michael Colvin, supported by Sir Geoffrey Pattie, Mr. John Butcher, Mr. Kenneth Warren, Mr. Michael Grylls, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. William Powell, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Doug Hoyle and Mr. Matthew Taylor, presented a Bill to make provision for securing computer material against unauthorised access or modification; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 February and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

SEXUAL OFFENCES

Sir William Shelton, supported by Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. Graham Bright, Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. Tom Cox, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Charles Irving, Mr. Robert Parry and Mr. Hugo Summerson, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution and to abolish the presumption that a boy under the age of fourteen is incapable of sexual intercourse: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 February and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

RIGHTS OF WAY (AGRICULTURAL LAND)

Mr. Edward Leigh, supported by Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Andrew


Mitchell, Mr. David Nicholson, Dr. Mike Woodcock and Miss Ann Widdecombe, presented a Bill to amend the law concerning rights of way, relating to the disturbance and restoration of the surface of footpaths and bridleways for the cultivation of agricultural land; to keep the line of rights of way clear of crops; to enable local authorities to act in connection therewith; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

PLANNING PERMISSION (DEMOLITION OF HOUSES)

Mr. John Wilkinson, supported by Mr. Hugh Dykes, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. John Gorst, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. Cyril Townsend and Mr. Robert Adley, presented a Bill to make it obligatory to apply for planning permission before demolishing a dwelling-house: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 March and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

ENTERTAINMENTS (INCREASED PENALTIES)

Mr. Graham Bright, supported by Mr. Steve Norris, Dr. John Marek, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. David Madel, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. James Cran, presented a Bill to increase the penalties for certain offences under enactments relating to the licensing of premises or places used for dancing, music or other entertainments of a like kind: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

RADIATION EXPOSED CROWN EMPLOYEES (BENEFITS)

Mr. Bob Clay, supported by Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Joan Ruddock and Mr. Gavin Strang, presented a Bill to provide a presumption of service connection to any person who, whilst in Crown service, participated in the British nuclear weapons testing programme and who suffers from certain diseases that may be attributable to exposure to ionising radiation; to make provision for benefits payable from the National Insurance Fund to such persons and their dependants; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 March and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

ROAD TRAFFIC (TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS)

Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo, supported by Mr. Richard Alexander, presented a Bill to make new provision in place of sections 14 and 15 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

ABOLITION OF WARRANT SALES (SCOTLAND)

Mrs. Margaret Ewing, supported by Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Jim Sillars, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Dennis Canavan, and Mr. Dick Douglas, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to poinding and warrant sales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 February and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, supported by Mr. Kenneth Warren, Mr. Barry Porter and Mr. Roger King, presented a Bill to provide for a person no longer resident at his qualifying address or at any other address in the same area to be eligible for an absent vote for an indefinite period at Parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom and local government elections in Great Britain: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

ACCESS TO HEALTH RECORDS

Mr. Doug Henderson, supported by Ms. Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Steve Norris, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Sir Giles Shaw, Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Kenneth Warren, presented a Bill to establish a right of access, subject to certain exemptions, by individuals to health records relating to themselves and, in certain circumstances, to their children; to allow applications for access to be made by representatives or dependants; to allow individuals to obtain copies of, and require amendments to, such records; to make provision in respect of right of access and certain contractual obligations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

ENTITLEMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

Mr. Giles Radice, supported by Mr. Ted Garrett, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. Calum Macdonald, Mr. George Robertson, Ms. Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Jack Thompson, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. David Clelland, presented a Bill to make provision for employment and training for persons unemployed for a period of time; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

CAR TELEPHONES (SAFETY)

Mr. Douglas French, supported by Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Malcolm Moss, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. David Porter and Miss Ann Widdecombe, presented a Bill to prescribe standards for car telephones intended for use by drivers; to make it an offence to use equipment which does not conform to these standards while driving a motor vehicle; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 March and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

LICENSING (LOW ALCOHOL DRINKS)

Sir Peter Emery, supported by Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. John Wheeler, Sir Bernard Braine, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Bill Walker, Sir Fergus Montgomery, Mr. Michael J. Martin and Mr. Richard Page, presented a Bill to amend the definition of 'intoxicating liquor' in the Licensing Act 1964 and 'alcoholic liquor' in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 with respect to alcohol in low alcohol drinks: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

MISUSE OF DRUGS

Mr. Menzies Campbell presented a Bill to extend the coverage of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to include certain drugs which have been misused for the purpose of improving performance in sport: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 March and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Alex Carlile, supported by Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. Calum Macdonald, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Richard Alexander, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. Alan Amos and Mr. John Greenway, presented a Bill to amend Schedule 3 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 so as to remove the right to serve an incontestable notice to quit for non-agricultural uses except where planning permission has been given or is not required by reason of Crown immunity: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 February and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

MARRIAGE (REGISTRATION OF BUILDINGS)

Mr. George Walden presented a Bill to allow a building to be registered for the solemnization of marriage under Section 41 of the Marriage Act 1949 notwithstanding that it forms part of another building: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

NORTHERN IRELAND ACT 1974 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. William Ross, supported by Mr. James Molyneaux, Mr. Cecil Walker, Mr. Roy Beggs, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. John D. Taylor, Mr. Harold McCusker, Mr. Clifford Forsythe and Mr. Ken Maginnis, presented a Bill to amend the Northern Ireland Act 1974 so as to provide that laws for Northern Ireland may not be made by Order in Council but by Bill introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Ordered,
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Special Agencies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of the Future Economy and Environment of North Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 21st December do adjourn until Monday 8th January.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I am pleased that you have called me first, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the House should not adjourn for Christmas until it has dealt with the extremely important issue of the imprisonment in Iraq of my constituent Mr. Ian Richter.
This case first came to the notice of the British public when in the Financial Times of 24 July 1986, an article appeared headed
British businessman detained in Iraq.
It stated:
A British businessman has been arrested in Iraq in connection with alleged corruption. Mr. Ian Richter, local manager of the British water engineers Paterson Candy International was detained as he was leaving Baghdad airport.
No one who knew Ian Richter could believe that he could be the subject of such accusations. He is an honourable and kind man with a loving family. He was serving not only the interests of his company and of his country in Iraq but, over a long period, had tried to improve conditions for the Iraqis. He was involved in trying to create a new water system on the south bank of the River Tigris as it passes through Baghdad.
As soon as Mr. Richter was arrested, on 17 June 1986, the Foreign Office was informed and diplomats in Baghdad speculated that there was a connection with the dismissal from office on 22 June of that year of the mayor of Baghdad, Mr. Al-Mufti, for, in the words of a presidential decree,
unfaithfulness in his responsibility in preserving the Government's money.
After Mr. Richter was arrested, Foreign Office officials were allowed to see him on only one occasion. There was a five-minute meeting on 7 July 1986 and even at that meeting Ian Richter was not allowed to speak to the ambassador.
By 24 September 1986 the issue had become so worrying—because of Ian Richter's almost certain innocence and the paucity of evidence brought against him —that the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, met Mr. Tariq Aziz at the United Nations General Assembly. Happily, that meeting enabled Ian Richter to receive certain consular access. There was no doubt that the access previously granted to him was against the terms of the Vienna convention on consular relations. The Foreign Office consistently tried to improve conditions for Ian Richter and at that stage sought permission on humanitarian grounds for Mrs. Shirley Richter to rejoin her children in the United Kingdom.
I am pleased that throughout that time the Foreign Office had constant contact with both the Baghdad office and certain Iraqi officials. The Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), saw members of Ian Richter's family on 14 August 1986. From that time onwards serious accusations were made about the Iraqis' handling of the case.
By November 1986 access to Mr. Richter, which started after Mr. Aziz intervened at one visit per week, was reduced to one visit per fortnight and later to one per month. As Mr. Richter was technically on remand, the


conditions in which he was held were disgraceful by any international standard. In November 1986 my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), the former Minister for Trade, met Mrs. Shirley Richter and then went to Iraq. Throughout the following months regular discussions were held on Ian Richter and hardly any evidence was produced against him.
When Mr. Richter was brought to trial in Baghdad on 7 February 1987, the court case lasted less than one hour and what little evidence was presented was in Arabic. During the build-up to the trial, Mr. Richter was asked to sign statements in Arabic which contained no translation. Unfortunately, during his trial he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment under the articles of the Iraqi penal code relating to bribery and the forging of official documents.
As I have stated, many believe that this case had little to do with Ian Richter and more to do with internal politics in Iraq. The mayor of Baghdad was subsequently tried and executed. In the years since Ian was sentenced, the Foreign Office has tried as hard as it could to secure his release. It is difficult for Ian's many friends to believe that the Foreign Office is doing anything at all because Ian is still in prison in Baghdad and there has been little press comment on his case other than the article in the Financial Times at the beginning of this episode and another in the London Daily News—which exists no more—on 25 February 1987.
There was little press comment because it was felt that the Iraqis would not respond to the sort of pressure that the press might bring to bear and that it might be counter-productive. It is clear from the various meetings between British Foreign Office officials and Iraqi officials that trying to do things the decent way has not worked.
Ian has now been in prison for three and a half years on a charge that we do not believe. I cannot pay enough tribute to successive Ministers and officials at the Foreign Office for what they have tried to do. I have spoken to them many times and they have always been extremely helpful in keeping me briefed.
In September 1987 my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House met Mr. Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Secretary, yet again. His successor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), met the Iraqi Foreign Minister in September 1989. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), travelled to Iraq on 13 February 1989 and spoke to officials. Whenever the British Government have dealt with Iraqi officials, Ian Richter has been at the top of the agenda.
From time to time I have been in contact with Julian Sheffield, the chairman of Portals Holdings plc, the holding company of Ian's company. Portals Holdings has continued to pay Ian the full overseas rate and it has provided certain assistance to his family. I believe that the company might have exerted more commercial pressure in Iraq, but I thank it for what it has done, as does Ian.
On 23 November 1987 I received a letter from Ian, set out in typically courageous terms. He thanked everyone for their interest, assistance and "refreshing attitude". He said:
It means an awful lot to me living somewhat afar, but close to you all in spirit. My family have been quite magnificent through the ordeal and consequently it is my duty to be equally strong and buoyant here.

Everyone who has met or been in contact with Ian believes him to be a most honourable man and a victim of power politics. Earlier this year my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) visited Iraq and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield was able to speak to Ian.
I am also extremely pleased that, as a result of a suggestion from the Foreign Office, King Hussein raised the issue with the Iraqis. I feel that he also believes that this is a matter of humanitarian need and that the case is not based on genuine forgery or fraud.
What is extremely disturbing, however, is the fact that Ian is now the only long-term prisoner in Iraq. Increasingly, I believe that this case is simply one where Ian was arrested as an excuse to try to secure the imprisonment of the mayor of Baghdad, who was a political inconvenience to the then leadership. I believe that Ian is a hostage. Perhaps he is a hostage because of our Government's courageous decision not to sell Iraq Hawk aircraft for fear that they might be abused by the Iraqi air force.
It is more likely, however, that he is being held because of the imprisonment of Salim Hassan who was convicted in 1979 in the United Kingdom for murdering a former Iraqi prime minister. He is now serving a life term in prison. As the Iraqis told my hon. Friends in September, they are explicitly making this link with Ian's imprisonment. Although the Foreign Office assumed that that was the real reason behind Ian's continued imprisonment, the Iraqis, until recently, had never said so. Now they openly say that if we release an assassin, they will release an innocent man.
The purpose of calling the attention of the House to this case before we adjourn is that Ian will be spending another Christmas in prison. His courageous wife, Shirley, is in Iraq now. The Iraqis try to pretend that they are a civilised people, that they are turning westwards and that they want to trade with and receive aid from us. It is with unacceptable, however, that they should use such uncivilised and barbaric practices to hold on to Ian Richter.
Another purpose of the debate is to thank the Foreign Office publicly for the work that it has done over many months. I believe that it could not have done more. The overriding reason for this debate, however, is to pay tribute to Shirley Richter, her children and particularly her husband. I believe that he is serving the nation's cause—although not deliberately according to our wishes—as I know that he would not want to be released if the price for his release was the release of a convicted assassin.
On humanitarian grounds and at this time of Christmas I call, once more, on the Iraqi Government to release an innocent man.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Christmas this year may not see any spending records in the shops, but, assuredly, there will be one new record. My activities as a trustee of Crisis at Christmas, an admirable and most deserving charity, tell me that there will be a record number of homeless people in Britain this Christmas. They dwell not only on the streets of London, but on those of Manchester, Glasgow and other cities


across this country. That there will be room for many of them indoors at Christmas 1989 owes everything to charitable endeavour, not to the Government's efforts.
The Leader of the House advised his ministerial colleagues to do more listening. I hope that there will soon be more evidence that they have heeded his sound advice. Since 1979, homelessness has doubled and the number still grows apace as more and more psychiatric patients are dumped on the streets in the name of community care. The number of homes repossessed by building societies in the first half of 1989 was two and a half times greater than for the whole of 1979. That is a striking figure.
Some 120,000 households will have presented themselves as homeless to local authorities this year. What is also extremely worrying is the record number of children living in poverty this Christmas. Of all Britain's poor, about one third are children.
Happily, however, another record will be broken this Christmas—a record number of young people will be working to provide food and Christmas shelter for Britain's homeless. Amidst all the inhumanity of official attitudes to homelessness, their example at least is one of man's humanity to man. Should there not be a ministerial statement on the record number of homeless people before the House rises for the Christmas recess?
For about the 40th time since the Government came to power, we are debating the motion for a parliamentary recess while still awaiting the fulfilment of the Government's 1979 election promise to create a coherent system of benefits for people with disabilities. Is there anything that the Leader of the House can tell us today about the Government's intentions? Will there be any announcement before the recess? In November, a small package of reforms was announced at the time of the uprating. Welcome as each individual reform may be, their timing was more an attempt to camouflage the Government's repeated failure to uprate child benefit than a move towards a coherent structure of benefits for the disabled. The Government have consistently refused to involve voluntary organisations and outside experts in the so-called review process. Therefore, the major statement that is rumoured for the new year does not fill them with much hope.
Notwithstanding the minor adjustments since then, there are still too many casualties among chronically sick and disabled people of the April 1988 cuts whom Ministers dismiss with pristine Thatcherite contempt. Last July, I raised repeatedly with social security Ministers the fact that some people with AIDS were entitled to £30 more under the old supplementary benefits scheme to meet the costs of their special diets than many of them now receive under income support. That is a cruel cut in benefits for people, many of whom are terminally ill.
Last week I finally received a reply, which was five months overdue from the Minister with responsibility for the disabled. It included the fine sentiment that nothing could be done because
income support is a non-contributory benefit which is financed by the taxes paid by the working population, many of whom are low paid themselves.
However, the people he conscripts to his aid, without consulting them, do not have a life-threatening disease which is exacerbated by poor diet and poor living conditions. What makes it even more absurd is that the

cost of drugs for someone with AIDS is estimated at more than £100 a week and it is possible that those costs will soon be extended to non-symptomatic people with HIV.
The stubborn refusal of Ministers to undo the damage they wreaked in 1988 is not only heartless, but blatantly poor economics. However, I was encouraged by one reply from the Minister, in which he told me that his officials had been in recent consultation with the Department of Health about the financial needs of people with AIDS. Since the split-up of the Department of Health and Social Security last year, it had seemed doubtful whether there was any liaison in Richmond house at all. Before House rises for the Recess, we need to know the outcome of the consultation between the two Departments.
On 10 July, the Minister with responsibility for the disabled told his hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) that he was still in detailed discussions with the local authority associations about section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. That reply is recorded in vol. 156, c. 381 of Hansard. Only two days later, the Secretary of State for Health declared that section 7 had fallen out of favour. On 24 July, the Minister for Health revealed that no meeting had been held since March and no further meeting had yet been arranged. That was reported in vol. 157, c. 541 of Hansard.
The confusion over the fate of the 1986 Act has continued into the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. On 27 November, during the debate on the Loyal Address, I spoke about the muddle that appears to have been created. I received no reply, and neither did my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) when he spoke during the Second Reading debate. Despite the fact that there were four ministerial speeches on the Bill, references to community care were scant and superficial.
As the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said on 12 December, the community care proposals have simply been tagged on to a National Health Service Bill. This was recorded in vol. 163, c. 846. It did not please the Government but it was undoubtedly true.
After waiting 18 months for a response to the Griffiths report, the White Paper was published only a week before the Bill. It appears that Ministers understand little and care less about the issues involved, which are of the utmost importance to millions of disabled and elderly people, and their carers and families. These issues are also deeply important to the young people who will give so freely of their time this Christmas to help provide food and shelter for many of the worst victims of the crisis in community care whom we now see them sleeping rough, night by night, on the streets of our great cities.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: For years I have been extolling the benefits and virtues of Manchester international airport, as has the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I do so because it happens to be the largest single employer in my constituency and is also an enormous asset for the north-west region of England.
As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may know, Manchester is making a bid for the Olympic games in 1996. If we were lucky enough to win that, it would be the most enormous boost that the north-west of England has


had for a long time. The campaign has been spearheaded by a man called Bob Scott, who has done an enormous amount of work on the project.
At a recent Question Time, the Prime Minister gave her support to the idea of Manchester hosting the Olympic games in 1996. During the campaign, enormous play has been made of the fact that there are excellent communications in the Manchester area. We have good rail links and an excellent motorway system. We have particularly emphasised how important Manchester international airport would be.
Apart from the possibility of hosting the Olympic games, we are also anxious to have more international flights in and out of Manchester airport. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) who, until recently, was Secretary of State for Transport, for the enormous support that he gave us during his time as Secretary of State. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport, who has also been particularly helpful.

Dr. Dafyd Elis Thomas: The hon. Gentleman also has the support of all of us in North Wales in his campaign to increase the numbers of international flights to Manchester, which is an extremely important airport for business and tourist purposes in North Wales.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The airport is important not just to the north-west but to the north and also, as he rightly said, to Wales and particularly North Wales.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Having been a member of Manchester airport committee, I cannot let a debate on Manchester airport go by without mentioning Liverpool airport, as I now represent a Merseyside seat. That is also an important gateway and should be more effectively linked with Manchester so that they can be used jointly. The future of Liverpool airport should be linked with the successful Manchester airport, with which I was proud to be associated.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's words will be noted. Now I shall return to the speech that I have prepared.
Negotiations have been continuing for some time with American Airlines, which wants new services in and out of Manchester airport. Delta Airlines wants to fly daily flights from Atlanta to Manchester. North West Airlines wants to fly daily flights from Boston to Manchester. American Airlines wants an additional daily service from Chicago to Manchester. I emphasise the word "additional" because it already has a daily flight between Manchester and Chicago and, due to its success, now wants two flights per day. If we could obtain the new flights, it is estimated that this would create 3,500 new jobs in the area.
Talks with the Americans are due to recommence early in the new year. There is a great sense of urgency because it is necessary for the airlines to know as quickly as possible. If they are to obtain these flights they must start arranging them for their summer schedule. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a direct personal approach to his American counterpart, Mr. Skinner—not the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but the Secretary for Transportation in the

American Administration. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will stress to his Cabinet colleagues how vital these negotiations are.
I am afraid that there is one cloud on the horizon. There is a strike of baggage handlers at Manchester airport, which is causing a great deal of unhappiness in the area. Last week Manchester airport was closed for five and a half days because firemen refused to cross the picket line, thereby compromising the safety regulations. That cost the airport about £150,000 per day in landing fees. The strike is basically about the creation of 94 new jobs and the consequent reduction in excessive overtime. I suggest that it is sad that a union can bring men out on strike because new jobs are being created. The management at the airport have had volunteers doing the baggage handlers' work and they have been fully supported by the board of directors at the airport, which consists of councillors from the 10 district councils which make up the Greater Manchester area.
The Government have given enormous support to Manchester airport in the past 10 years and we have also enjoyed cross-party support in the House. Now all those efforts are being impeded by an unnecessary strike. If the people concerned care about the future of Manchester airport and its effect on the economy of the north-west, I hope that they will get their men back to work at the earliest possible opportunity.
My second point concerns Barlow Clowes. I felt rather like a jack-in-the-box yesterday while the statement on the affair was being made, because I desperately wanted to ask a question about it. Quite a number of my constituents were caught up in the Barlow Clowes crash, most of them elderly people who had invested their money in the company because they had been advised by people whom they thought were properly qualified advisers that they were investing in Government securities with a company licensed by the Department of Trade and Industry.
I cannot help feeling that Lord Young, when Secretary of State, did not handle the problem quite as sympathetically as he might have done. Incidentally, it was fascinating to see the rift among the Opposition yesterday. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman welcomed the compensation, albeit grudgingly. Then the hon. Member for East Ham—

Mr. Tony Banks: Newham North-West.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I knew that the hon. Gentleman was one of the hams. In any case, I noticed how angry he was about the fact that compensation was being paid. He sat in his place fuming and grumbling about the way in which taxpayers' money was being handed out, as he said, to stuff the pockets of the rich.

Mr. Banks: indicated assent.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I assure the hon. Gentleman that many of the people in my constituency who were involved are not rich. They are elderly people who had invested their savings or redundancy payments in an attempt to get a little extra income—

Mr. Banks: Speculation.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt from this—

Mr. Banks: Do not speculate.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: As it is Christmas time, I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have cared a little more about people who have suffered a great deal of anxiety over the past 18 months. The hon. Gentlman's views were, in any event, not shared by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.

Mt. Banks: I am on the Back Benches.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: No doubt that is why.
I also want to point out to my right hon. and learned Friend that the Secretary of State did an extremely good job yesterday and many people are happier as a result of his statement. He made it as quickly as he could because he especially wanted to deliver it before Christmas, but 42 minutes was not enough time to devote to the issue. This also proves that, no matter how hard one tries, one cannot please everyone.
The Government have made a generous and fair decision but in today's Daily Mail a man called Leslie Mullard, whose £64,000 nest egg disappeared, gives the deal only a lukewarm welcome because, he says, investors should have had a total return on their capital and the income that would have accrued on it. Perhaps the hon. member for Newham, North-West and I do not differ in believing that the lesson of this sorry affair is that people must realise that high-return investments often carry high risks.

Mr. Banks: I agree.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: It was in recognition of that fact that the ombudsman recommended an abatement of 10 per cent. of investments of up to £50,000. It is the old story—nothing in the world can be acquired for nothing. High-risk investments may bring high returns, but they also involve high risks.
Finally, I want briefly to mention the problems of the National Health Service in my constituency. Recently, the two health authorities that cover my area put out consultation documents. Trafford health authority feared an overspend of £1·1 million next year, so it advanced some of the options on which it believes it may have to embark. One option is to close the accident and emergency services at Altrincham general hospital; the second is to close the geriatric unit at St. Anne's hospital; and the third is to cease general family planning services.
All these options have been bitterly opposed by local people. I happen to believe that my constituency has been badly served in the provision of hospitals. We were promised a new district hospital years ago—then, suddenly, the option disappeared, not by decision of the Department of Health but by decision of the North Western regional health authority. No one has ever quite explained to me why the hospital disappeared when it did.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many of his constituents go to the accident and emergency department of Wythenshawe hospital. How concerned is he about the current proposals affecting that department?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: If the right hon. Gentleman had only allowed me to continue, I was coming to that. It is of great consequence to my constituency.
Trafford general hospital, the general hospital for Trafford health authority, is difficult to get to from my constituency; Wythenshawe hospital in the South

Manchester health authority area is much more convenient. However, the consultation document put out by South Manchester health authority proposes some rationalisation between Wythenshawe hospital and Withington hospital. Option A, the preferred option, would make Wythenshawe no longer a major accident centre, and it would lose many of its services.
Comments on the documents must be in by 6 January. I have had a long talk with the chairman of the South Manchester health authority, who has assured me that no decisions will be made until all comments have been studied. Suffice it to say that these proposals have caused a furore in my constituency. I have been bombarded letters from concerned people who are worried about the future. The problem has also allowed mischief makers to have a field day and to claim that everything has already been decided. Perhaps something could be done to avoid the period of uncertainty that always seems to occur at this time of year.
I realise that we are spending more on the Health Service. I realise that there are more doctors and nurses and that more patients are being treated, but people's expectations have also risen enormously. My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and I went to see the Secretary of State for Health recently, and were told that more money would be forthcoming in the Chancellor's statement.
Then, last week, I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who said:
The announcement of an extra £77·8 million for North Western RHA includes a cash increase on its general allocation of 6·34 per cent., or a real terms increase of 1·28 per cent. This compares well with the resource assumptions issued to the RHA in August, when we asked the Region to plan for an increase in real terms within the range -0·3 per cent. to +0·2 per cent. In addition, there have been increases to a number of specific allocations for identified programmes, as shown in the table attached to the press statement.
As a result of these increases, there is of course no reason for unplanned service reductions, and we expect NHS services in the North West to continue in the pattern of improvement which has been set in recent years.
That sounds very nice and it gives me a great deal of hope, but there is still a nasty suspicion lurking in the back of my mind that the new money is not quite so adequate as we had at first expected. I believe that the health authorities in the north-west do not know the amount of their allocation, and they will not know it until some time early in the new year, but they believe that they will have to find at least 1·6 per cent. to cover potential pay awards and price increases, over and above the 5 per cent. allocated for inflation by the Secretary of State. Any underfunding of review body pay awards to doctors, dentists and nurses would make the situation considerably worse.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will convey to our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health my request for reassurances on the three issues that I raised before the House rises for the Christmas recess.

Mr. Allen McKay: It is appropriate that my speech should deal with the problems of getting patients to hospital. It appears that the Secretary of State for Health is allowing the problems currently confronting Britain's ambulance service to escalate, to the point where he will be able to exercise less control than he


traditionally does. It is wrong for the House to adjourn for the Christmas recess without debating the problems besetting the ambulance service. Unless the Secretary of State can offer new advice, the dispute will get worse and worse.
My experience is that, once Christmas is over, people look forward to their holidays. Therefore, there is no reason for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to imagine that he willl be able to starve the ambulance men back to work or use his economic powers to force them back to work on what are clearly unacceptable financial terms.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State does not want the dispute to spread to other sectors of the Health Service. However, that argument does not wash, because problems already exist in those other sections. Right hon. and hon. Members have heard both from the midwifery service and the speech therapy service that they are discontented. Messages and warnings are also being received from the nursing service. That dissatisfaction also should not be allowed to develop to the point where it is even more difficult to overcome.
The Secretary of State for Health has remarked that arbitration is a figment of the 1970s, but that is the wrong way of looking at a service that has served us well in the past. All my working life, I have believed that every trade union/employer agreement should make provision for a dispute procedure. When I worked in the mining industry, I was involved in the concept of its different collieries working together to reach different agreements on working conditions, both by consultation and through conciliation, and coal agreements. That could be achieved only through a binding acceptance by both sides to follow a conciliation procedure and to refer any disputes to an arbitration tribunal.
It is as well to refer some disputes to a third party, who can stand back and view matters in a different light from that of the two combatants. It is wrong of the Secretary of State for Health to suggest that the arbitration service would simply cut the award by half. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so right in the views that he expresses, and if he is so certain of the fairness of his offer, what does he have to fear from the arbitration service, which would take into account awards that have already been granted?
Many years ago, when I was a member of the Labour Staffs Association, the National Union of Mineworkers and NACODS accepted an offer, whereas our association declined to do so and took the matter to arbitration. The panel openly declared that, because the two other organisations had accepted the employers' offer, and even though our members deserved more, a higher award to them would upset the equilibrium. That is the way in which arbitration works, and there is nothing wrong in using it.
The Secretary of State for Health should not feel that he is backing down by going to arbitration. His refusal to do so has more to do with bolstering his own ego. No doubt he has made promises to the Prime Minister and to others of his right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers, that he will not personally intervene in the dispute. That is not the right way for a Secretary of State to conduct himself, and neither is his attitude a responsible one.
Today, we do not have an ambulance service that the public can rely on. The House should have debated the dispute before the Christmas Recess, because the majority

of the public are of the opinion that the Secretary of State is wrong. We are here to represent the public and to express their views in this House, and the House itself ought to decide whether or not the dispute should go to arbitration.
Once the ambulance service dispute goes to arbitration, the problem will be over. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House appreciate that the need for a reliable ambulance service will increase over Christmas, and it is wrong to put the public at risk. About a week ago, one of my constituents collapsed and died at a local football match. Although it would be wrong to claim that he died only because the ambulance service was unavailable and because it took about half an hour for an Army ambulance to arrive, the individual who tried to revive him is an ambulance service worker. There is an ambulance depot only two minutes away from that football ground, and it is not hard to believe that, had it been operating properly, that constituent would be alive today.
At the ambulance station about half a mile from where I live, workers are turning up for duty, willing to answer all emergency calls. However, when they arrive for work, the station's chief superintendent asks, "Are you willing to work as normal?" When they answer no, the ambulances' ignition keys are removed. The ambulance men and ambulances are available, but because of the way that the dispute has been handled, they cannot respond properly to emergency calls.
If the Secretary of State for Health is so worried about the problems of the ambulance sector spreading to other parts of the National Health Service, why does he not remove it from the control of his Department and place it under that of the Home Office, together with the police and fire services? That would be to return to the former situation, under which it developed from a combined fire and ambulance service.
Before the House rises, there should be an understanding from the Secretary of State for Health that he will refer the ambulance dispute to arbitration, so that our ambulance men can return to work.

Mr. Barry Field: The House should not adjourn for the Recess until it has debated two important matters. The first involves my constituency. On 11 December, 230 of my constituents were informed that their employer—a subsidiary of Norcros named Temperature Ltd.—is to close, with substantial job losses and effects on the island's economy, and that a small number of jobs will be transferred to Portsmouth. The factory concerned is located behind Sandown lake, in an area that suffers the highest seasonal rate of unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom. Any job loss that erodes our industrial base on the island deals a serious blow to us. I am sure that I have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that we feel for the 230-plus employees who have been given notice so soon before Christmas.
The Isle of Wight development board has tried very hard to find a way of assisting in the difficulties, and I am pleased to say that a number of large employers on the island—such as Westland Aerospace and Plessey—have already expressed an interest in taking on skilled


employees. In an economy such as ours, skilled men are always in demand; it is the unskilled who are difficult to employ.
The problem came about because of a lack of orders from British Rail for rolling stock containing air conditioning. The position is rather complicated; British Rail had originally secured a tranche of units for the 158 express from British Rail Engineering Ltd, and, following the prompt and successful completion of the contract, established a reputation for its reliable, high-specification and thoroughly serviceable air-conditioning unit. BREL, however, is now a privatised organisation.
I went to see the vice-chairman of British Rail to find out what could be done to assist the factory. Temperature was alarmed that it had been taken off—or, rather, had not been able to get on—the tender list of the major rolling-stock suppliers: it had had to join up with a French company manufacturing railway air conditioning to get on to the tender list in this country.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently announced record investment in new rolling stock, and for train sets to go via the Channel tunnel. We hear a good deal nowadays about the level playing field of the EEC. British taxpayers' money is being invested—quite rightly—in rolling stock to meet the needs of the Channel tunnel in the 1990s, and the increasing demands for air-conditioned trains to improve the comfort of passengers. Yet, for reasons that I have been unable to ascertain, a British company providing a first-class product has been excluded from the tender list. That raises a serious issue of principle.
I received a letter from Mr. David Kirby, British Rail's vice-chairman, on 1 December, and sent it on to the company. In the letter, Mr. Kirby told me that the opportunity of further orders for the company was likely to arise next year—which, as hon. Members will appreciate, will be far too late.
I have involved myself in the possibility of the privatisation of British Rail's assets on the Isle of Wight. The island's modest railway network does not, in my view, fit into the overall jigsaw of Network SouthEast. Unfortunately, the negotiations were blown somewhat out of proportion during my absence on holiday. I was unable to comment in the local press, and was attacked vehemently by a number of political opponents. I had, however, contacted my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport in June or July, in the hope that he would visit the island to consider the possibility of separating the local service from British Rail. I also hoped that he would pay a non-ministerial visit to the Temperature factory nearby to see the manufacture of air-conditioning units for himself.
Unhappily, because the saga had been blown out of proportion in my absence, the Minister probably—and rightly—took a step backwards from involvement in the political melee that followed: British Rail certainly did. I fear that no good was done to Temperature's employment prospects, and that, had we made more orderly progress, the position might be very different today.
Last week, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, informing him that considerable investment in new rolling stock and air conditioning was likely to go overseas—perhaps to EEC

countries, but not to parts of the United Kingdom and certainly not to my constituency. I hope that, now that the problem is on the record, I shall obtain a positive response from my right hon. Friend, and that we may yet find out why we have been prevented from participating in that investment and thereby maintaining a significant part of our manufacturing base on the Isle of Wight.
My second reason for suggesting that the House should not be adjourned prematurely relates to the awful happenings in Romania. I find it extraordinary that the Opposition should have chosen to submit a private notice question on Panama, given that the loss of lives there is —fortunately—small in comparison with that in Romania.

Mr. David Winnick: I know that the hon. Gentleman came into the House only in the most recent general election, and he may not know that Mr. Speaker has said repeatedly that private notice applications should not be referred to on the Floor of the House. Does he accept, however, that only the procedures of the House prevent me from correcting what he has just said?

Mr. Field: I can help the hon. Gentleman. I myself submitted an application for a private notice question about Romania. It is obvious that one application was agreed to, because we discussed it earlier in relation to Panama; it is equally obvious that others were not, as there has been no discussion of them until now.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Mr. Field: That is all that I shall say about that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope so.

Mr. Field: The position in Romania is extremely serious. I believe that we should consider the plight of the poor people in that wretched country—if not tonight, at least before the House adjourns for Christmas—especially in view of our considerable volume of trade with it. We receive an imbalance of manufactured goods from Romania, which is one of the only COMECON countries with a balance-of-payments surplus—indeed, I think it is the only one. It is obvious that an evil regime is being propped up by the considerable foreign exchange balances that have been built up.
Her Majesty's Government really ought to agree to meet companies that are importing Romanian goods and to discuss an urgent switch of production away from the regime, with the aim of bringing it down—and the sooner the better. In Britain, we are fortunate because we can elect and dismiss Governments without the intervention of a bayonet or a bullet.
I hope that, as right hon. and hon. Members go home to their families, as they put their arms around their children and make their once-yearly visit to church for midnight mass on Christmas Eve, they will remember the awful events that have taken place in Romania in the past few days. Thousands have been injured and maimed in the streets because they wished to enjoy the freedom that we have in the House—freedom of speech.
The events in Romania show that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right to stand alone on the world stage and, once again, refuse to bow to the Chamberlainesque breeze that is blowing through Europe. We have seen reductions in American forces and President


Mitterrand swooning over the reunification of Germany that Chancellor Kohl is in helter-skelter pursuit of. Therefore, I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is standing alone and saying that we must not be dazzled by the events in eastern Europe. The horrible events in Romania in the past few days have driven that lesson home.

Mr. Tony Banks: We should not adjourn for the Christmas Recess until we have discussed the situation in Panama. I am glad that the Leader of the House, who has a distinguished record as a former Foreign Secretary, is here to reply to the debate. If I am not in the Chamber to hear his reply, it will not be because I am not interested, but because I think I am getting the 'flu that is just about right for Christmas—and I shall read what he says with great interest.
I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister and former Foreign Secretary will say what he really believes, rather than the line that the Government are currently pushing. The Government's current line is craven, it is not based on principle, and it is not, I believe, one that he would wish in his heart to defend.
The United States has given three reasons for its invasion of Panama city. The first reason was to restore democracy. There was much talk in the earlier private notice question about the fact that the election was called off, and that the current regime in Panama is therefore not legitimate. I remind the House that the United States Administration did their best to interfere in the outcome of that election by putting in at least $10 million, and by supporting the Christian Democrats party. That degree of interference was bound to destabilise the democratic processes, undeveloped as they undoubtedly are, during the elections in Panama.
The long-running sanctions against Panama have had an impact on public opinion. Not least among the reasons is the revenue from the Panama Canal, which has been held illegally by the United States Government, and none of which has been given to the Panamanian authorities. Frankly. I think that it was despicable and unwise of the Government to come immediately to the aid of the United States. I count myself as a friend of the United States, but one has to say to one's friends in the United States Administration that the interests of democracy cannot be served by acting as an aggressor, and that is precisely how the United States has behaved today. It has been guilty of using double standards.
The second reason that the United States gave was that its troops went in to protect United States lives. I understand that one United States service man who was hanging around the headquarters of the Panamanian defence forces for some reason was killed. Perhaps he was being more provocative than he should have been. Now dozens of United States troops are dead in the streets of Panama City, because of the action that has been taken. I know that that is true, because I have just spoken to the Panamanian ambassador and he has been in touch with events in Panama. He told me that 114 civilians had been killed and 300 wounded.
I have visited Panama on a number of occasions. I know exactly where the headquarters of the Panamanian defence forces is located. It is in a working-class residential

area. Anyone who sets out to bombard the headquarters is bound to cause numerous civilian casualties, and that is precisely what has happened.
The ambassador also told me that hospitals in Panama City cannot manage. The United States can take the dead away quickly because it has the facilities. The Panamanians cannot. There is an embargo on medical supplies coming to Panama from the United States. The ambassador told me that pharmaceutical companies which supply hospitals in Panama are refusing to give them plasma, on the instructions of the United States Government, as part of the embargo that they have been imposing for some days. So much for saving lives—it seems strange that the United States wants to save lives by killing people. Many of the civilians killed were entirely innocent. For what purpose? It was supposed to be a bloodless coup. Meanwhile, General Noriega is alive and well and living in Panama—he was not in the headquarters.
I noticed pictures in the newspapers yesterday of fully armed Panamanian defence force soldiers and I wondered why. I could see no reason at all. It is clear that all this has been bubbling away for some time. The Panamanian defence forces, of which General Noriega used to be the head, are all American-trained and probably as good as the United States troops—indeed, judging by today's results, they are considerably better.
Instead of a bloodless coup, the streets of Panama City have blood and dead United States service men on them. What will that do to public opinion in America, when United States soldiers go back in coffins?
The third reason that the United States has given is that it had to move in to stop General Noriega's reign of terror. That is grotesque. I do not stand here and defend Noriega but, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) pointed out, one cannot begin to compare him and what has been going on in Panama with Romania and Ceausescu. What about the events in Tiananmen square? How can one talk about a reign of terror in Panama when one compares events there with those in Romania and Tiananmen square? What about the death squad activities in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras? No death squads have been operating on the streets of Panama City. There have been casualties, but they have not begun to compare with what has been going on for years in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, with the knowledge and connivance of United States Governments both past and present.
We do not need any lectures on morality, democracy or terror from the United States, which is scarcely innocent and hardly comes to the discussion with clean hands. What about the support that the United States has given the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua? It is amazing that anyone can accept that the Americans can argue on foreign policy from a position of morality. Let us remember President Roosevelt's dictum in the days of Somosa's dictatorship, which the United States supported up to the hilt. He said:
He might be a son-of-a-bitch but he's our son-of-a-bitch.
That has been the philosophy behind American foreign policy.
The United States' action is blatant aggression, it is wholly wrong, and it is an infringement of Panamanian sovereignty. I must tell the deputy Prime Minister and former Foreign Secretary that the United States Government have been acting no better than a bunch of


international terrorists in the way they are conducting themselves on the streets of Panama City. They have infringed the terms of the Panama canal treaty and the United Nations charter, and we all know that that is so.
Another argument that the United States has used is that General Noriega is a drug runner. If that is true, the United States has known about it for a long time, so how come there was a time when General Noriega was flavour of the month? It was, of course, because the United States felt that he was someone whom the United States could manipulate in the interests of American foreign policy in Central America, but that has not worked. He suddenly stopped being flavour of the month and became public enemy number one. One cannot be convinced by United States arguments of that type.
We know exactly what all this is about. It is about the United States trying to maintain its influence in the canal zone. Even I admit that it cannot renege on the Carter-Torrijos treaty of 1977, which Reaganites bitterly opposed. The US wants to install a puppet Government in Panama so that the Americans can stay in the Panama canal zone after 1999, by the end of which, under the 1977 treaty, they are due to quit. The Leader of House knows that the Panama canal zone is not just a depot for the US—it is part of the integrated command structure of US forces and the headquarters of southern command. I am not anti-US—

Mr. Barry Field: No?

Mr. Banks: I am no more anti-US because I bitterly criticise President Bush's aggressive actions than I am anti-British because I bitterly criticise the Government's domestic and foreign policies. I resent any imputation that I am anti-American.
I am most upset and angry at the Government's craven stance. Once again, they are acting as apologists for US agression. We used to have an independent foreign policy, but now we rush to defend US policy for the price of a presidential telephone call. There has been no prior consideration of what is going on in Panama. The Americans are being dragged into a war and we have supported them. There has been no consultation with our European Community partners. Once again, we have acted like a spineless jelly. This is a shameful day for the United States and for the British Government.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Much as I would like to pursue the crucial and urgent subject which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) introduced, he will realise that the framework of the debate does not allow me to do that and raise another matter which I think should be considered before the House rises for the Christmas recess.
The subject that I wish to mention could scarcely be further away from that raised by the hon. Gentleman. I refer to the special problem of women who have been widowed and who are contemplating remarriage, or women who have remarried and, by remarrying, have sacrificed the pension from their first husband's employer.
When a woman remarries, she is deemed to be the wife of her second husband and the pension from her first

husband is effectively forfeited. I submit my case in the context of widows of service men because they have a special case.
Until the second world war, officers in particular were discouraged from marrying until they were 30. No marriage allowance or accommodation was provided for them if they married before that age. That condition prevailed until 1960, when an officer was discouraged from marrying until he was 25, and was penalised if he did so. If the widow—I shall make up a hypothetical example—of a squadron leader decided to remarry, let us say, a retired naval commander, she would have to face the fact that she would forfeit her pension as the widow of a squadron leader. That is not particularly unusual because of the rather unusual pattern of marriage to which I have referred. Moreover, many service men retire rather younger than people in civilian life.
If a woman marries a retired service man, she knows that, on the death of her second husband, which is not too unusual because second husbands are often considerably older than their wives, she can apply for her first pension, which has lapsed, to be reinstated. Until 1988, the rule was that the pension that she was eligible to receive from the first husband
may be restored at the discretion of the Defence Council if there are compassionate grounds for doing so or if the second marriage comes to an end, or she ceases to live with the man as his wife.
Until 1988, women had to undergo a means, or needs, test.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who was then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, for establishing a more helpful form of words. In a letter to me last week, my noble Friend the Earl of Arran set out the current form of words concerning the restoration of the first pension when a woman is widowed for a second time. The words now used are:
There is however discretion to restore the Service widows' pension previously received when a subsequent marriage comes to an end. This discretion is exercised where a widow is financially worse off on second widowhood without the pension of her former Service husband than she was on first widowhood with that pension.
A woman who is contemplating a second marriage still has to step into the dark knowing that, should she be bereaved again, the restoration of her first pension will be subject to a means test. She would of course receive no pension from her second husband's employer if she married a man who was already retired.
Although these arrangements are better than those before 1988, they are still unsatisfactory. If a woman contemplates remarriage, she still does not know what will happen if she is left a widow again. That causes deep anxiety and prevents many women from remarrying. I know for a fact from constituency work that many women are deterred from remarrying because they do not know what will happen if they are widowed a second time.
The Officers Pension Society, which advises many widows in such circumstances, has to tell them, because of the uncertainty, that they can get round the problem by living with the men they would like to marry. I know of one case, which I hasten to add is not a constituency case, of an extremely respectable and elderly couple who went away for a weekend and came back telling their friends that they had remarried. They had done nothing of the


sort, but were trying to maintain a veneer of respectability. In fact, they were living together as man and wife but were unmarried.
The arrangements that I have described cause great distress to the people involved. The House should recognise that it is a sensitive issue. I ask that the widow of a service man who marries a second time and is then bereaved again should have the first pension restored automatically as of right. There is no other way in which to eliminate the means test or to avoid the present situation which prevents her from marrying a second time.
Perhaps I may be permitted to speak from personal experience. I believe that such a change is in the public interest and something with which the House should be concerned. Widows should be encouraged to remarry. My mother, having been widowed for many years, remarried at the age of 74, and the last five years of her life were as happy as any. We should shape rules that encourage remarriage.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to assure me that he will ask the Government to reconsider this matter to see whether the rules can be shaped to encourage remarriage and to eliminate the fears that are experienced under the present arrangements.

Mr. David Winnick: I should like to refer to two matters on the international scene which I believe should receive the House's attention before the motion is agreed to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has referred to United States' action in Panama. The Leader of the House is a former Foreign Secretary. I do not know whether, like me, he had hoped that we had come to the end of the time when the super-powers intervened in the affairs of other countries using arms.
Only a few weeks ago, the Soviet Union apologised for what it did in Czechoslovakia in August 1968. I welcome that. Indeed, I took part in the debate in the House on that invasion, in late August 1968. The United States' action in Panama takes us back to such action. It believes that it has the right to intervene using armed force. I take the opposite point of view. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, I do not think that there is any justification in international law for what the United States (lid. I would be the last person to defend or justify the regime in Panama. Of course it was rotten to the core and the dictator was an outright gangster, but the same applies unfortunately in many countries in the world. No one, I imagine, would argue that the Soviet Union should intervene in Romania.
The Unied States could have taken the matter to the United Nations Security Council. If we believe in international law and the principles of the United Nations, that is what the United States should have done. But of course it refused to do so. I find it difficult to believe that the United States Administration cannot live with the idea that there is a dictator in Panama. What about the bloody tyranny which existed in Chile after the 1973 coup? Far from helping the democratic forces, the United States gave Pinochet and his colleagues every encouragement. What about El Salvador, where only a few weeks ago six priests and two others were murdered by death squads that were undoubtedly linked to the pro-United States authorities?
I find it alarming, and I believe that Britain finds it humiliating, that once again the Prime Minister has supported the United States. We are told that President Bush telephoned her after the invasion. No doubt President Bush knew full well that the Prime Minister would give her approval. He expected it and he received it. How much better it would be if the United Kingdom Government could be relied upon to take a different view and condemn international aggression.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) in the exchanges this afternoon said that the United States had been wrong about Suez. I believe that the United States was absolutely right then and is very wrong now. I do not know what will happen in Panama. I do not know whether there will be renewed fighting, but one thing is absolutely certain. The Opposition totally condemn what has occurred, just as we condemned and would condemn again military intervention in neighbouring countries by the Soviet Union.
I am also concerned about the present situation in Romania. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who is not in his place, mentioned it, hut I believe that Opposition Members have more right to discuss Romania because we are against the abuse of human rights in all countries. I am not aware that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight made any protest against the murder of the six priests in El Salvador or against abuses of human rights in western countries. I am deeply concerned by what is happening in Rromania. Undoubtedly, the reports of what has occurred are genuine and hundreds of people have been executed as a result of the demonstrations there.
On the motion for the spring Adjournment on 22 May, I referred to the massive demonstrations that were taking place in China. I praised the Chinese students who were demanding more civil liberties in that country. Like everyone else, I deeply regret what tragically happened the following month.
I believe that we should give a warning to those in Romania who are responsible for ordering the bloodshed and carrying out those criminal orders. Shooting down men, women and children is a crime against humanity, and those responsible should be told that they will be held to account by the Romanian people.
People in Romania can probably see on their television screens the welcome changes that are taking place in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic. Understandably, they ask why they should have to live under an odious tyranny, and why they should not have the same rights as those in other Communist countries. I understand and sympathise with the people of Romania. I am not surprised by the way in which the regime has reacted. Clearly, the dictator of Romania is a psychopath and most of his close family are involved in the regime. Nevertheless, we should make it perfectly clear that those who are carrying out those crimes will be held to account.
However bloodstained the tyranny in Romania, no one has suggested that the Soviet Union—which is rather different from the Soviet Union of 1968—should intervene in Romania. If the Soviet Union rightly does not intervene in Romania because it has no right to do so, why should the United States intervene in Panama?
My final point relates to problems at home. I am sure that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that it will be a bleak Christmas for millions of our fellow citizens who are on or near the poverty line. It will not be


a very pleasant Christmas for those on income support and pensioners in the west midlands and elsewhere who cannot afford to heat their homes because they do not have sufficient cash. I urge the Leader of the House to make inquiries about the cold weather payment—a payment to those on income support only when the temperature falls below freezing point for five successive days. It is quite wrong that it should have to reach that level before the poorest pensioners in our community receive any help. So many people on low wages and benefits will not be looking forward to Christmas. So much of their poverty and hardship arises directly out of Tory Government policy.

Mr. John Ward: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will forgive me if I do not follow his line of reasoning, as I wish to refer to the fishing industry —a subject we discussed earlier today.
The House has heard the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the unrealistic quotas set by the EC for fish catches. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the increase in quotas for the United Kingdom that he has been able to negotiate in Brussels.
While the EC has decided to use the quota system to protect fish stocks, I still have reservations about it. I doubt whether it is an effective way to protect stocks because, when a fish is netted and landed, it inevitably dies and our fishermen are throwing back the fish that they are trying to preserve for future generations.
My right hon. Friend has done a very good job in Brussels for the United Kingdom fishing industry, but there will be a knock-on effect on inshore fishing. Before we depart for Christmas, the House should consider what can be done to help our coastal fishing industry.
There are three reasons why I believe that the sea fisheries districts' area of control should be extended from the present three miles to six miles for three reasons. First, inshore fishing stocks could be more effectively managed. Secondly, modern inshore fishing vessels are faster and more seaworthy than they were, and the inshore fishery is effectively extended to six miles already. Thirdly, sea fisheries committees could effectively police the area with their present resources, as they already act as MAFF's agents. I consider that to be a sensible move, which should be in place before the common fisheries policy review in 1992, yet the Ministry seems reluctant to tell us why that extension cannot be made.
Another area of great concern to inshore fishermen is the spread of aggregate dredging. That is happening particularly around the Isle of Wight, and it directly affects some of my constituents. With greater resistence to onshore recovery of aggregate for environmental reasons, the pressure for further licences for aggregate dredging is increasing. It has been suggested to me that urgent action is needed on three issues.
First, consultation with the fishing industry should take place at the earliest opportunity and not after the dredging companies have spent large sums of money on surveys and exploration, at which stage they are probably less willing to reach a compromise. Secondly, agreement must be reached in advance between the fishing and aggregate industries on an equitable division of the sea bed. Thirdly,

a full survey of fishery resources should automatically be carried out before any extraction licence is granted, to ensure that valuable breeding and spawning grounds are not destroyed or important commercial fisheries disrupted. Such surveys should be paid for by the dredging industry. It may also be necessary to restrict aggregate recovery to certain times of the year, so as to avoid interfering with spawning fish and nursery stocks.
Sewage and pollution are becoming of increasing concern to sea fisheries committees around the coast, particularly with the introduction of the European Community's molluscan and shellfish regulations. I understand that each application to discharge is considered in isolation, and it is doubtful whether any authority has a true picture of the total discharge in a given area. If that is so, I hope that the National Rivers Authority will remedy it with all speed.
Contamination of shellfish by sewage discharge can be caused by bacteria, heavy metals or changes to the water quality and sea bed. Of those, bacterial contamination is the most likely source of infection. It can be dealt with by a variety of means, which all add to the cost of the product. At present, that cost falls directly on the fishing industry and not on those who cause the pollution. The principle of the polluter paying could be applied.
By reducing the discharge of untreated or semi-treated sewage into the sea, we should bring into production other areas where at present contamination is too high to be treated. I have long believed that all discharges of raw or semi-treated sewage around our coasts should be banned, and although much has been said about the use of long outfalls and the improvement to our beaches that they bring, fishermen regard that as simply shifting the problem to another site. We need much care and consultation to ensure that the outfall does not discharge into a valuable fishing area, particularly where shellfish beds are in the vicinity.
In the southern sea fisheries area, which includes my constituency of Poole, some 80 per cent. of shellfish are exported, and with the introduction of the new EC regulations, it is essential that water quality in designated harvest areas is maintained. This requirement should be placed on the new water authorities.
I hope that responsibility for monitoring the molluscan and shellfish regulations will be placed on one Department; shared responsibility is rarely effective, and it should not be assumed that local environmental health officers, who do a very good job, will be able to carry out that new work. They are already asked to do too much with the resources they have, and they have neither the staff nor the equipment to take on that large additional task.
We hear much in the House about the deep-sea fishing industry. It is right that the Government should do all they can to ensure its long-term future, but it is equally important that the inshore fishing industry, which is a vital source of income to many of my constituents, is given the continuing support it needs to maintain its valuable contribution to the economy.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will pass on my comments about the inshore fishing industry to our friends at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because they are matters that should certainly be considered before the Christmas recess.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I echo what hon Members have said about the international position, particularly in Romania. I am certain that the former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who will reply to the debate, will be able to tell us about the position of the United Kingdom Government and any joint European Community action that may he contemplated or taken. Clearly, it is a subject on which the common foreign policy approach could be adopted.
I echo what hon. Members have said about the Health Service, and particularly the industrial dispute in the ambulance service. It is a matter of great concern to hon. Members that it is continuing. Although some health authorities have passed resolutions asking for the dispute to be referred to arbitration—I refer especially to Clwyd health authority, which borders and provides a service to my constituency—the Government are still not prepared to allow it to be resolved through the normal channels. As that point has been made by other hon. Members, I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to it when he replies to the debate.
I look forward to returning to my home areas of Snowdonia national park, and I wish to reflect on the community that I represent, particularly its economic base, and on the crisis facing upland farming.
This year, we are celebrating the 40th anniversary of national parks, and recently the Secretary of State for the Environment addressed a major conference on the topic. The boundaries of Snowdonia national park and my constituency are more or less conterminous. The Leader of the House has visited the area a number of times and we should like to see him again soon. The objective of the national park is the maintenance of the environment of the area and the encouragement of access to it. We welcome many people, including many hon. Members, who enjoy their recreation in the national park.
It is increasingly being emphasised that we must consider the economic well-being of the population of the national park because of their distinctive contribution to the structure of the landscape and the community. The national parks in Wales and England—there are none in Scotland yet—are not wilderness areas or natural parks such as those in the United States and other European countries. They have an indigenous population, not just flora and fauna. A cultural ecology is just as important as an environmental ecology for the future of the parks.
I refer specifically to the income of hill farmers in the national parks, particularly in Snowdonia. Hill livestock compensatory allowances are currently being considered by the Government. As a result of an agreement reached at the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 21 November, a limit has been placed on the European Community's contribution to HLCAs.
Hon. Members familiar with agriculture will know that the European Community pays 25 per cent. of the total cost and the member state Government pays the remainder. From 1991, the full EC contribution will be limited to the first 6,060 ecu, which is about £4,200 per farm. The next tranche will halve the contribution of the EC to HLCAs above the equivalent of £8,500 per farm.
That agreement is better than the original proposals, but it will still have a damaging effect on the income of

many hill farmers. A farmer who has 50 suckler cows and 2,000 ewes will lose £2,500. As I shall emphasise, the income of many hill farmers is marginal, to say the least.
Under those proposals, a total of 2,200 farms in Wales will lose, and the rural economy will lose about £2·5 million. We are therefore talking about a loss of income for an industry that maintains the community structure and landscape of our national parks.
The farming unions that are active in Wales—the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales —have put strong cases to Ministers with responsibilities for agriculture at the Welsh Office and to those at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I know that my Scottish colleagues in the Scottish National party and in other parties would want me to say that they have made strong representations to Ministers at the Scottish Office.
The hill livestock compensatory allowances rates are being reviewed. It is essential that there is an early announcement on those rates because they have not been changed since 1986 and have consequently fallen badly behind the rate of inflation. Breeding ewe prices in the markets in Wales have recently been an average of 30 per cent. lower than in autumn 1988. For those reasons it is important that the Government look to their economic contribution to the well-being of agriculture.
The Government have been saying—it was mentioned in the Autumn Statement—that they are making substantial savings on the common agricultural policy. Those savings average £155 million a year. Set against that saving, what is the £5 million that we are asking to be injected into hill farming? That figure is for hill farmers throughout the United Kingdom, so I am not being parochial or nationalistic. However, it is particularly important in Wales because 80 per cent. of agricultural land is in less-favoured areas. We are talking about some 14,500 farmers who received hill livestock compensatory allowances last year and who depend on them as part of their income.
Within the present maximum allowable payment per hectare of £71, there is scope to increase HLCA payments, but so far the Government have not seen fit to do so. I hope that the Leader of the House will convey my views to the Secretary of State for Wales—who is familiar with the issues—and to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
We are not talking about rich farmers. The myth that often circulates among the urban yuppie class is that farmers—whether they own their own farms or are tenants—have substantial assets. But their assets are useless to them unless they dispose of them. A recent study of the incomes of hill farmers by the agricultural economics department at University college, Aberystwyth, which I was pleased to visit recently, showed that in Wales 15,000 small family farms under 200 acres were surviving on virtual subsistence returns.
The dairy farmers involved had a net income of £389 a year and hill and upland farmers had an income of £108 a year in each of the two years covered by the survey. Half the farms recorded negative net farm incomes. That is not just clever accountancy by the farmers concerned but a realistic assessment by the agricultural economics department of the state of the industry and the level of incomes.
The farmers' crisis has been made worse by high interest rates, as a result of Government policy, and because of the relative decline in the value of sterling which has meant


that the green pound has been significantly overvalued. For sheepmeat, the green pound rate is some 90 per cent. above the market exchange rate. That again undermines farmers.
The importance of agriculture is that it provides a framework for community life in the countryside. I am a tenant—not a tenant farmer—of half a house on an old hill-farming estate that has maintained the pattern of life in the village and countryside. The National Trust is a major landowner in the upland areas of my constituency. It has established conservation and agricultural policies that are designed to maintain the landscape and community life.
For us in the countryside, agriculture is the backbone of the community. In the Welsh language—the language of most of those communities—the description of the countryside is "cefn gwlad", which means the backbone of the country. For those reasons I put the case for hill livestock compensatory allowances to be increased and for the Government to take their responsibility towards hill farming seriously. After all, the farming community is taking its responsibility seriously. On conservation, the farming community is increasingly making its contribution to the distinctive landscape of the park, to reinvesting and maintaining the structure of the farming industry and farm buildings and to maintaining the shape of the landscape.
That can be secured for the future by adequate return of income, whether from the lower output now being demanded or a transfer away from the emphasis on production, maintaining income by conservation grants, by practices benevolent to the countryside or more organic farming. Farmers are adaptable and subtle people and they welcome those changes, but they expect to be assured that they can attain a decent level of income. They look to the Government, the Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to the Leader of the House to listen to their message.

Mr. John Bowis: Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly referred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Because of the speed at which foreign affairs have been moving in the past few months, weeks and days, it is important to ask the Leader of the House to assure us that the continuing movement in foreign affairs is monitored and, where appropriate, action taken. If necessary the House should be recalled if the security of the nation or the European Community appears to be at risk.
Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to Romania. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is not in his place, but I should preface my remarks by saying that Conservative Members also raise matters of human rights wherever they may be and in whatever country, whether West, East, Communist or capitalist, and they will continue to do so. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to cast aspersions on Conservative Members by saying that they would not do so if it were a capitalist country. I was in Sri Lanka recently and raised matters of human rights with the President and I will continue to do so wherever I go in the world.
Therefore, it is permissible for Conservative Members such as myself to refer to the horrors of recent events in Romania. It is one of the most tragic episodes in post-war European history, certainly in my lifetime, to see a European country engaged in the slaughter of its own people. Not so many years ago, that country was seen as a gateway to the West for Communist eastern and central Europe. Now, under the same leader, it has gone downhill helter-skelter into tyranny. It is sad to see President Ceausescu standing for ever in the patheon of tyrants alongside Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
It is also ironic that, around the world, mass slaughter and terror are often carried out not by the tsars and shahs of the past, but by those who claim to be the people's representatives and the people's Governments. We see that in Romania, China, and Cambodia. However, even in this their blackest hour there is still hope for the people of Romania. That hope is based on the realities of what we have seen throughout our continent in recent months. However long it takes, ultimately tyranny cannot and will not last.
In my lifetime I have seen tyrannies in eastern and central Europe rise and then begin to crumble and fall. As a schoolboy I remember visiting the Czech-Austrian border and being impressed by the stark watchtowers and barbed wire. I came back and wrote poems about them in my English lessons. I heard on the radio about the Soviet invasion of Hungary and about the tanks rolling into Budapest. I also remember the Prague spring and the hopes that were raised and then dashed in the Dubcek period. However, one now sees, in those same countries, people's rights having their way and people's hopes coming to fruition, perhaps led by what has been achieved in Poland through Solidarity. I declare an interest as I have the headquarters of Solidarity with Solidarity in my constituency. I have seen that brave nation overcoming Communism with the help of its Church. We now see Poland's need for food and know-how. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will also bear in mind the need to help with political organisation. Ultimately, a democracy cannot rest on trade union power alone; it must have many parties, and Poland requires assistance to allow the emerging parties to develop.
East Germany is also moving towards democracy and progress. A year ago I was with some hon. Members in Leipzig and East Berlin. It is incredible to consider how we looked at that psychological and physical wall and wondered how it could ever be destroyed. After only a year, that wall is no more.
A year ago Mr. Honecker, the late not much lamented leader of East Germany, went to Moscow trying to get the line right. Half the leadership of East Germany that he left behind tried to tell us that Moscow was catching up with East Germany and that Honecker had gone to Moscow to tell the Russians how East Germany had done it. The other half of the leadership, much more realistically, said that there had to be changes but that they would take time. They said that the economy needed time to develop. They believed that, if the wall was opened quickly, business men and professionals would leave. They said that we should be patient. But the East Germans found the courage to allow people to leave first through the back door and then through the front door and they have found that walls can be torn down without the country collapsing.
When we consider the events in East Germany, the Soviet Union, Poland and Czechoslovakia, we must be


careful. It is all very well for changes to occur within countries and it is fine for regimes to fall and for new democracies to be created. However, if borders are threatened, there may be instability which could lead to danger. I hope very much that the Baltic states will one day be free. As we encourage them towards that freedom, we must play it slow and careful. The same applies when we consider the German borders and those further south. In Romania, Romanians are destroying Romanians, but they are also destroying the Hungarian minority, so there are pressures on Hungary to become involved and border problems may become apparent.
Yugoslavia is user-friendly to people in this country. British people go there on holiday because they feel safe and comfortable. As Communism begins to collapse in Yugoslavia, however, the country is beginning to fragment and there are potential dangers in that. Within Yugoslavia, the Serbs comprise 40 per cent. of the population. The Serbs are a fine people but they must be reminded that they must encourage other minorities in Yugoslavia to their rights and freedom too.
The Slovenes are considering seceding from Yugoslavia. The Croatians are worried about Serbian demonstrations and the Bosnians are worried about the activities of the Serbian secret police. The Macedonians are worried about Serbian settlers. That is all happening against a background of inflation running at between 1,200 per cent. and 1,600 per cent. per year. Indeed, about 5,000 homes in Zagreb do not have electricity, not because of a power strike or because people have been cut off but because they cannot pay their bills. That situation breeds instability.
Alongside this I refer to Kosovo and to the Albanian people within that part of Yugoslavia. I raise this issue particularly on behalf of constituents of Albanian extraction who are concerned about the fate of their fellow Albanians in Yugoslavia and within Kosovo in particular. Incidentally, I am sure that all hon. Members will be aware that Mother Theresa is a famous Yugoslav Albanian. The fate of nearly 1·7 million Albanians in Yugoslavia is uncertain because there are Serbian troops, aircraft and helicopters throughout Kosovo. People are being arrested for minor infringements of the constitution. If someone says that Kosovo should secede, that is considered an anti-revolutionary act and the person could go to prison for 12 years or more. That is an example of tyranny within a user-friendly Communist state and we must be aware of it. We must also beware of the dangers of Yugoslavia breaking up. If it breaks up into small states, there will be instability in that part of Europe. We must persuade the Serbian leaders in Yugoslavia to find peaceful solutions to their problems.
have been describing the decline and collapse of Communism in Europe. That was inevitable and it is right and good. As Will Rogers said:
Communism is like prohibition—it's a good idea, but it won't work.
As we move into a new decade, there is great hope and optimism for the future of Europe as east, west, north, and south are all coming together. At the same time, we must be vigilant. There is hope, but there is also sorrow. The sorrow is evident in Romania. The hope is in Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and, perhaps most importantly, in the Soviet Union.
During the Christmas recess 1 urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to urge his right

hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign Office who are dealing with our foreign policy, and also our European counterparts, to bring pressure to bear on the developing democracies in east and central Europe to ensure that there is real justice for all the people and that border issues are played carefully and slowly.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and I wholeheartedly agree with the majority of his comments. It is right that during such a Christmas Adjournment debate we should consider events in other parts of the world. The pace of those events is very pressing. They are important and have a wide-ranging effect on our relationships with the new emerging democracies in Europe and elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman's speech was well-argued and wide-ranging.
I want to bring the House back briefly to a more domestic, but none the less important issue—the changes in the employment benefit rules as they particularly affect part-time workers. I make no apologies for referring to such a technical change in the regulations because, although the change may appear insignificant, it has a dramatic financial effect on a great number of people. The House should not adjourn for Christmas until more consideration has been given to the effect of those changes in the next few weeks.
The changes in the unemployment rules to which I will refer specifically were introduced in the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1989. The House may be aware that those regulations were laid before the house on 17 November and took effect on 10 December, under the Social Security Act 1989. They were debated in Standing Committee under the negative procedure on 13 December and were criticised by the Committee at some length.
The regulations introduce several changes. Regulation 2(a) prevents people from receiving unemployment benefit in any week in which they earn more than the lower earnings limit, which is currently £43. Before those changes, as the House will be aware, people could claim unemployment benefit for any day in which their earnings did not exceed £2. That meant that people could earn some money—considerable money in some cases— a few days of the week and then claim benefit for the remaining days in which earnings were less than £2.
Regulation 2(a) is a small bureaucratic change, and it did not sound as though it would make too much of a difference for too many people, but it is a fundamental change in the way in which national insurance contributory benefits, which include unemployment benefit, will operate in the future. The fundamental change really means that, in future, unemployment benefit will be means-tested. We all know that there is a contributions test for eligibility for unemployment benefit and that one must be available for work, but, when the regulations come into effect, there will be a third additional requirement. If a part-time worker now earns more than £43 in any given week, he or she will be denied unemployment benefit. That is a far-reaching change to the principle of unemployment benefit as Beveridge saw it


and as it has operated in the past 40 years. It is a serious erosion of people's entitlement to benefit and it has extensive implications.
The Department of Social Security estimates that 30,000 people will be affected by the changes in any given week and that perhaps as many as 500,000 people could lose one or more week's benefit in any given year as a result of the changes.
I want to register the strongest possible complaint about the method by which the changes are made. These far-reaching changes were visited on employers and employees alike, out of the blue and over a short time. I accept that the Government had signalled their intention to make changes in that respect when the Social Security Bill was considered in Committee in February, but there was no indication of exactly how they would be given effect. We were given two or three weeks in which to respond before the regulations were implemented.
It is unreasonable to make such changes in such a short time, without extensive consultation with employers and employees' organisations. The Government's justification is that anyone earning £43 a week pays national insurance. In their bureaucratic, simple-minded way, they argue that it is wrong to treat people earning £43 a week as employed for national insurance contribution purposes and consider them to be unemployed for unemployment benefit eligibility purposes in the same week.
The Social Security Advisory Committee, the Government's own adviser in these matters, was not at all impressed by that argument. It took the view, with which I wholeheartedly agree, that £43 a week is far too low a sum on which to base the threshold for the new eligibility for unemployment benefit. The committee agreed that there was some merit in using the principle. I accept that there is an argument for establishing such a principle, but the level is scandalously low. It is a substantial deterrent to part-time work, and the Confederation of British Industry has made lengthy representations to the Government to that effect. The Government's policy is that they are seeking to encourage people to go back into part-time work, often as a step on the ladder back to full-time employment for those who have been unemployed for many months or years. It is a retrograde step to produce an additional disincentive to part-time work.
The Low Pay Unit said that someone who turns down a part-time job because of the new changes may not only lose one week's benefit in the future but may be judged to be rendering himself voluntarily unemployed. In that case, he would stand to lose up to six months' unemployment benefit. That is a serious new problem to arise out of the changes.
I hope that the Leader of the House will listen carefully to the urgent plea from not only me but other Members, and the SSAC, for a full-scale review of unemployment benefit. The Government, in their note on the SSAC report, said that they were making the changes on a transitional basis. I hope that that transitional process does not last too long after the Christmas recess. The effects are dramatic. Taken together with the other changes being made in the actively seeking work test that is now being applied to unemployment benefit, the measures are being undertaken far too fast with very little thought being given to their long-term effects on people.
Cynics will argue that this is the 30th change to the method of calculating the number of those who are actively seeking work and claiming benefit—the 30th administrative change in the method of counting the unemployed in a way that will substantially reduce the headline monthly totals of jobless people.
I refer to two constituency cases to demonstrate the effects of the changes. The change in the £43 weekly earnings rule will have a serious effect on the textile industry in towns such as Hawick, Jedburgh and Kelso. Knitwear manufacturers have entered into an agreement with trade unions whereby workers work an eight-day fortnight. They do that deliberately so that part-time workers—casual workers who work four days one week and four days the next—can claim benefit totalling about £11·57 a fortnight. Summarily and out of the blue, the regulations will deprive part-time workers who are already suffering financial hardships.
The knitwear industry is going through a difficult period in any case. The combination of fashion changes, increases in the price of raw materials, and fluctuations in interest rates have led to short-time working being the norm in hosiery mills in my constituency. In a town such as Hawick, for example, where there are about 3,000 part-timers, principally women, almost three quarters of workers will be caught.
At a stroke, more than 2,000 part-time workerswomen—in my constituency will lose nearly £12 a week as a result of the change. The employers can do nothing about that.
The effect on inshore fishermen in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom will be dramatic. If a vessel is laid up through bad weather or technical failure for the whole of the benefit week except for one day, and on that day the skipper decides to go out to sea, he risks prejudicing unemployment claims for all the days on which his vessel was laid up. That could amount to about £56·10 a week for a married share fisherman.
All these changes have come out of the blue, and the effect on the fishing industry will be severe. The Leader of the House knows that quotas and total allowable catches are restricting fishing opportunities for the inshore fleet and are causing great problems. Using the two examples of share fishermen in ports such as Eyemouth and textile workers in towns such as Hawick, it can clearly be seen that the regulations should be withdrawn pending a review. They are mean-minded, cruelly timed and wholly unjustified. Many part-time workers already experience hardship.
In the past, unemployment benefits have played an important part in supplementing meagre wages for part-time workers. These changes are a disincentive to work and a further unjustified attack on the living standards of the low-paid. Scrooge is certainly alive and well this Christmas, and living in the Department of Social Security.

Mr. David Amess: I hope that everyone enjoys the Christmas festivities, although this has been a gloomy debate so far, but before the House rises for the Christmas recess I hope that the House will consider the three brief points that I wish to raise.
My first point relates to hospital radio. I have the honour of being the unpaid spokesman for the National


Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations which represents 310 radio stations, serving 700 hospitals throughout the country. We have 11,000 volunteers, making us the largest voluntary organisation in the country without any paid officers. Hospital radio does a magnificent job. Fund raising is always difficult, but, as all hon. Members will agree, the therapeutic benefits of hospital radio are proven.
On Valentine's day, we launched the "I Love Hospital Radio" campaign. We hoped to persuade the Treasury to zero-rate VAT on hospital radio broadcasting equipment. Unfortunately, I am advised by Treasury Ministers that we cannot be treated exactly the same as Talking Books for the Handicapped and that apparently we come under European jurisdiction which makes it difficult to zero-rate the VAT on hospital radio broadcasting equipment. However, many members of NAHBO are concerned that, with the advent of liberalisation, the substantial increase in listener choice will result in patients relying on their own portable radio receivers. Without low-powered radio frequency transmitter facilities, hospital radio will be unable to compete with other services.
I hope that each and every hon. Member will start to become active in lobbying the Home Office to allow hospital radio to have its own frequency. During the summer we had a fruitful meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who is now the Chief Whip but who then had Home Office responsibilities, and went on to meet the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. If we are to achieve our own frequency for hospital radio, it is essential that all hon. Members, who no doubt visit their hospital radio stations from time to time, lobby the Home Office and the IBA so that we are granted our own frequency.
My second point relates to national lotteries. Premium bonds were introduced in November 1956. They are no longer the great attraction that they used to be. Perhaps the change in spending patterns means that the prizes are no longer the great attraction that they used to be. I very much support the idea of a national lottery. I was delighted that this summer the Home Office announced that from 1 September 1989 the limits on maximum prizes would be increased by 100 per cent. However, the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 makes no provision for a national lottery. I do not understand why we seem tardy in legislating for a national lottery because, however the funds were distributed, a national lottery would have great benefits for the arts, for the environment and for sporting facilities throughout the country.
We estimate that a national lottery would give an income of £1·08 billion per year. All our EC partners have national lotteries and total EC sales are now 11·6 billion. I fear that several of the most powerful European lotteries are at this moment gleefully anticipating the opportunity to fill Britain's unique void in the European lottery market. In addition, 116 countries on every continent generate $56·3 billion of revenue, contributing to various good causes for the benefit of their people.
I have no doubt that a national lottery would be a tremendous success in this country. I am sure that it is not beyond the design of the media to hold the draws on television. No doubt we could interrupt "Neighbours" or "Coronation Street" and a celebrity could draw the prize in the national lottery—

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend could do it himself.

Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend has given us a further suggestion. I have no doubt that a national lottery would be an enormous success.
My final point relates to the televising of our proceedings. I voted against the televising of our proceedings, and everything that has happened since has made me even more adamant in the view that I originally held. First, we were told that the lights in the Chamber would be unobtrusive. I advise those who cannot see the lights in the Chamber that they appear to be covered by a cross between mosquito nets and old-fashioned bloomers. That is the first promise that has not been kept.
Secondly, we were told that the television cameras would not be noticeable. As far as I am concerned, they certainly are noticeable. The third and perhaps the most pathetic promise that was made was that the television cameras would bring hon. Members back into the Chamber. I have not seen any examples of hon. Members rushing back into the Chamber, in spite of the televising of our proceedings—

Mr. Winnick: Only for the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Amess: I repeat that the Chamber is not a television set. Television gives only a certain image of the House. I admit that I noticed about three weeks ago when we were debating a one-and-a-half hour order—a Welsh measure that normally would not have been well attended—there were about 50 Welsh Members on the Opposition Benches, including the Leader of the Opposition. That was certainly geared to whatever was to be shown on Welsh television.
I very much regret the televising of our proceedings and note that the television companies have certainly not stuck to the guidelines on showing only head-and-shoulder shots. I shall continue to use the television cameras for all they are worth in the hope that eventually I will be offered my own chat show programme, but in the interim I hope that when we have the opportunity through the Leader of the House to vote on the experiment the House will reject it and that we shall enter the next decade camera-free.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I shall follow the comments of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) in only one respect. I think that televising Parliament has been a great success. "Neil Kinnock and the Labour party" has come across very well and I am not surprised that Conservative Members are still objecting.
I had been dreaming of a green Christmas. We were going to have a green Bill. The so-called green Bill was published today as the Environmental Protection Bill. This morning the Labour party published its alternative entitled "Blue or Green?" We challenged the Government's Bill with a check list. Having looked through our check list and read most of the Bill, I can confirm that it is a blue Bill, not a green Bill, so I shall not have the green Christmas that I had expected.
The Government's legislation will continue to allow sea dumping. The Government are to privatise waste disposal, including that of toxic and chemical wastes. They are to put concern for that fundamental issue into the market place so that profit—not concern for the environment—will determine who deals with our toxic and chemical


waste. The British people will oppose the privatisation and commercialisation of the problems of toxic waste, just as they opposed water privatisation.
The so-called "green Bill" does not mention any scheme to deal with the problems of dogs, although they are a major problem everywhere. Entering some of the estates in my constituency is like entering a safari park. I went into a supermarket the other day and a dog came in and had a wee on the South African oranges. One of my constituents said, "What are you going to do about that, Mr. Roberts?" I said, "Buy Australian." The problem of dogs is serious, yet the Government refuse to act on it. They will not introduce a comprehensive dog registration scheme.
Still included in the Bill is an attack on the Nature Conservancy Council—it will still be decimated. There are additional responsibilities for local authorities, without the additional resources to enable them to do the job. Of course, there is not even a mention of the major environmental issue facing not only this country but the world—the greenhouse gases and global warming effect. There will be a 26 per cent. increase in carbon dioxide emissions in Britain by the year 2005. It is not surprising that the Government refuse to mention carbon dioxide emissions, greenhouse gases and global warming; they have refused to set targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions because, under their policies for transport and energy, projections are that carbon dioxide emissions will increase, not reduce.
The Bill does say that we will help the Third world to deal with the problem of deforestation, which would contribute to reducing the greenhouse effect. However, that is not where the major problem lies. Only 8 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions come from the developing world; 90-plus per cent. comes from the developed world. Some 50 per cent. of all carbon dioxide comes from Russia, the United States of America, Japan and Britain —the four major polluters. Britain refuses to do anything about that.
Only yesterday, the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Government were to cut subsidis to British Rail and therefore to the public transport system. People will not be encouraged to leave their cars at home. About 6,000 new cars a day come on to our roads, half being company cars that receive Government subsidies. How hypocritical of the Government to claim that they are concerned about global warming and carbon dioxide emissions when they are pursuing such transport policies. They should set targets, start reductions, alter their transport and energy policies and spend money on alternative, benign energy research and development.
I had hoped for a green Christmas on Merseyside. I had hoped that the Bill would relieve some of the environmental problems in my constituency, which is fast becoming an environmental disaster area. The port of Liverpool, which I represent, has shifted from traditional cargos to bulk cargoes and it is now importing coal and coal dust. It is like living in a coal mining area. The coal dust comes in; there are mountains of it—a new skyline for Merseyside. It gets in the cornflakes and in the sugar; it is everywhere. Because the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has special development order status, it can do all that without permission. The legislation prevents effective action from being taken because it is not sufficiently strong

on the issue of nuisance. We can only take the board and the stevedore companies to the magistrates court, where they receive paltry fines for the pollution that they cause.
Another major problem in my constituency is scrap metal. There are mountains of it in the port. I have a nice house overlooking the marina in Crosby. It overlooks the beach, which would be lovely were it not for the sewage on it. I can see across the Irish bay and, on a nice day, I can see the Welsh mountains. However, if I look to the left I can see the scrap shredder, which is built next to a nature reserve. Planning permission was not required, so it is there and it causes terrific problems.
The so-called green Bill makes no mention of smells. The Control of Pollution Act does not cover smells. The seed crusher and oil processor in docklands stinks out the whole constituency. There is nothing that anyone can do about it. I admit that the companies are beginning research and hope to take some action, but there is no way that the local authority can take action because there is no legislation to cover that.
The River Mersey is a major problem. The Government claim that they are cleaning it. In fact, they are taking the raw sewage out of the Mersey—they are spending £3·5 billion on this—and bringing it to a dock in my constituency, where they turn it into sewage sludge, full of heavy metal, put it on boats that take it back into the river estuary ready to dump it in the sea, where it would have been in the first place if they had left it to float down the River Mersey. The only difference is that it has been turned into sludge—but it is only primary treatment.
The Government are not dealing with any of the other pollution problems in the River Mersey, such as heavy metals, PCBs, mercury, cadmium and lead. There are 27 deemed consents for discharges into the River Mersey by factories and chemical factories. They are polluting the river. There were 23 prosecutions in 1987. The average fine for companies such as Shell and ICI was £680. It is not surprising that the PCBs are still there, as are the heavy metals and the chemicals. The Government are simply taking out the raw sewage and then dumping it back as sewage sludge. It is an absolute sham. The Government have no plans to stop the dumping of poisonous sewage sludge into the sea.
Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Basildon, I want to end on a Christmas note and mention a vegetarian pantomime. There is currently an environmental pantomime in London at the Etcetera theatre, above the Oxford Arms in Camden. The baddies are Lord Hailam and Flora Cardham. The Ugly Sisters are Sox and Knox. It is called "Dick Withington and His Amazing Catalytic Converter". Anyone going to see the pantomime would get the message that the Government should be getting. Indeed, if Ministers had been to see the pantomime before they produced the so-called green Bill it might have been a green Bill rather than a blue one.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Time is short and I am conscious that there is another Opposition Member hoping to speak. I shall confine my remarks to three related subjects which I believe should be discussed before the House adjourns. They are conductive education, the Peto Institute in Budapest, Hungary—which is the home


of conductive education—and my constituent Dawn Rogers, who has been at the Peto Institute for 27 months and is having great difficulty obtaining public funding.
Conductive education—it is not yet sufficiently well known in this country—is a method of educating children, and also some adults, with motor disorders, which are disorders of the central nervous system. That educational system is based on what I believe is known as a "whole person approach". Its aim is to enable children with a motor disability to participate fully in mainstream education. The professional input comes from one person, the conductor, who incorporates the skills of many different groups including those of physiotherapist, occupational therapist, teacher and nurse.
The treatment is intensive and relies upon considerable parental involvement. The children are taught more or less from the time they wake up until they go to bed. The aims are to provide education in a structured and rigorous way so that children can have greater control over their bodies and join in everyday life without artificial aids and appliances.
In a moving article in The Sunday Times written almost two years ago, Rose Shepherd described her visit to the Peto clinic and how the British contingent used to arrive there with what she called all the paraphernalia of handicap. It is a great contrast with the Hungarian approach, which is to get the children on to their own feet and up and about as soon as possible.
Conductive education was developed and devised by Dr. Andreas Peto. His philosophy was very simple—that a motor disorder need not be a sentence of immobility for life, but a learning difficulty that can be overcome by skilled teaching. In other words, skills that are automatic to a normal little child can be taught and acquired. There are no miracle cures, but the Peto Institute can claim a 70 per cent. success rate—defined as "autofunction", or the capability to attend school and eventually live an independent life without the need for special help and equipment.
Such treatment is not generally available in Britain. Anxieties among educationists perhaps prevented an advance until relatively recently, when those anxieties were in part laid to rest. The Government have provided Birmingham university with £326,000 to carry out research into conductive education, and the Departments of Education and Science and of Social Security are jointly funding a survey by the Spastics Society.
The Government's announcement last week of a £5 million grant to the Peto Institute over the next four years is extremely welcome. The grant will go towards the capital costs of the new international Peto Institute in Budapest, a commitment that will make available spaces at the institute commensurate with the number of British children able to go there. At present, 11 British people are being trained on a four-year course to be conductors. About 600 children have attended the institute and the United Kingdom makes more use of it than any other country. I welcome the Government's announcement of that additional funding during the Hungarian Prime Minister's visit here this week.
In addition, as part of a programme of exchanges between the Peto Institute and the Birmingham foundation, a small number of British children receive training in Birmingham from Hungarian conductors and United Kingdom trainees.
Such exchanges beg the question why we cannot move a little faster towards securing the availability of conductive education in Britain. I accept that conductive education already influences professionals involved in educating handicapped children. I also accept that the introduction into the United Kingdom of the Hungarian model of conductive education on any significant scale will have to await the availability of a group of British conductors trained and taught at the Peto Institute. I applaud the Government's support for the Peto Institute and for conductive education. I urge Ministers to speed up as much as possible the provision of such education in the United Kingdom.
Children who attend the Peto Institute receive funding from several sources. There are no central figures, but I am informed that there are approximately eight long-term students at the Peto Institute, of whom six or seven receive support from their local education authorities. There are no more long-term places available. In the past there has been some uncertainty about whether local education authorities could fund students attending the Peto Institute. That has been cleared up by an amendment to the Children Act 1989. I understand that several education authorities, including Coventry, Devon, Birmingham and Fife have helped such students and there may be others who have done so. Alas, my constituent is one of perhaps only two who are as yet unfunded.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, and his officials, whom I met earlier this year to discuss whether any additional means of support could be made available to my constituent. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, who has taken a considerable interest in the subject as a whole and in my constituent. My right hon. Friend made clear to me in a recent letter that the Government believe that it is right for parents who consider that the Peto Institute offers services to their disabled children which are not available in Britain to seek support from public funds.
The structure of education in Britain inevitably means that parents must appeal to local education authorities for funding. The remaining budget of the Department of Education and Science is tiny, as funds are funnelled through LEAs. Therefore, my constituents must seek support from Nottinghamshire education authority. So far, we have been unable to persuade the authority to assist. I appreciate how difficult it is for the authority to consider such cases and to grant funds, and I understand that such decisions are not easy. Nevertheless, I appeal to it to reconsider, because this is a one-off case.
My constituent's family have remortgaged their home, sold their business, their caravan and many personal assets and taken out bank loans to be in Budapest with my young constituent. Their reward has been to witness the outstanding progress of their nine-year-old daughter. The local community, too, has been extremely generous. I pay tribute to several organisations in my constituency which have sought to help.
I hope that, in reconsidering, Nottinghamshire education authority will bear in mind the following points. I make them in the spirit of this time of year in the hope that it will seriously consider helping. My constituent has already been at the Peto Institute for two years and three months, so no new decision need be made about where she should be educated. At most, she has an estimated 18


months to go at the institute. If the local education authority were to assist, it would not open the floodgates. Alas, no new long-term places are available at the Peto Institute. Miss Rogers is one of the lucky ones who has made it there in time.
Since the local authority first considered the case, the Government have changed the law in the way that I outlined earlier. Much else has changed, too, including a greater acceptance of the methods of conductive education. The Government have given their explicit approval, as evidenced by their support for the Peto Institute announced in the past week.
I intend no reflection on the quality of Aspley Wood and Fountaindale in Nottinghamshire and the professionalism of the teachers and staff there. My constituent has attended the Peto Institute for the past two and a quarter years and the length of her stay there is finite. Her family have demonstrated their absolute determination to help their daughter. I believe that the authority should assist. Its education committee must be moved by the examples of dedication and self-help which her family display.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will remember the case of Sebastion Clarke in Birmingham, his fight for funding and his eventual success. My constituents can look to that example with hope. I hope that the LEA will consider what it can do to assist my constituent during her last 18 months at the Peto Institute.

Dr. John Cunningham: Inevitably, we have had a wide-ranging debate. I am only sorry that the patience of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has not been rewarded and that he has not been able to make his speech.
The debate ranged from events in Panama to Romania and general events in eastern Europe. It touched not only on political changes but on educational programmes in eastern Europe—the Peto Institute has just been mentioned. We heard about the problems of service widows, the poor and the homeless. We have heard, rightly, from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) that the House will begin the Christmas recess without any resolution in sight of the long-running ambulance workers' dispute. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) made a speech which was perhaps as close to my constituency interests as any other made today. He spoke of the problems in national parks and those faced by hill farmers. A large part of my constituency is in the Lake District national park, and I agree with the views that the hon. Gentleman expressed.
Above all, we have heard about the problems of people on low incomes, young people and unemployed people, particularly from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). Several hon. Members who have spoken believe, as I do, that at the end of this decade we face problems in social policy, industrial and economic policy which are a scandal in a country such as Britain. At a time when Europe is undergoing momentous changes, Britain should look forward to playing an influential and dynamic role in those changes. We are poised on the brink

of a challenging new decade. After 10 years of a Conservative Government we have not solved the problems of the 1980s.
We participate in this adjournment debate facing many problems for the second or, in some cases, the third time under this Government. They include the problems of economic recession, critically high interest rates, high and rising inflation, homelessness and unemployment. The Conservative Governments of the 1980s will be remembered for their narrow view of individuals' interests, the dogmatic attitude to the market system, their authoritarianism and centralism, the favouritism that they have shown to the well-off and their neglect of the majority of people. We are witnessing the prodigious waste of British people, particularly the unemployed, and of the nation's resources.
We have no choice about whether or not we respond to the changes which will take place in the 1990s. Those changes will happen, and they are happening all around us. However, we have a choice about the manner in which we respond and how we deal with those changes. The question is whether we allow, as we have done in the 1980s, too many of our fellow citizens to be victims of change—poor people, people on low incomes, those who lose their jobs or their homes, people who are left behind—or whether we manage the coming changes in such a way as to involve all our people, with the costs and the benefits being shared evenly, fairly and realistically throughout the community.
The most moving speech today was that which commenced the debate, in which the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) described the plight of his constituent, Ian Richter. The circumstances in which Mr. Richter and his family find themselves can only be described as appalling. I am sure that everyone present will share the thoughts expressed by the hon. Gentleman towards the family of his constituent. We also share the hope that, somehow, Mr. Richter can be released so that he can regain his freedom and return to the safety and care of his family.
Since the state opening, we have heard much from Ministers about how well the Government have done and how well the economy has been managed. From time to time we have also heard about the so-called economic miracle, but less so since the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) resigned so dramatically. We leave this decade, however, with inflation, interest rates and unemployment levels higher than those of our competitors and European neighbours, and with the largest trade deficit in our history—the highest of the industrial world in relative terms.
We do not leave the 1980s in good shape to face the 1990s. Despite the claims about good management and good economic policies, too many of our people have been treated unfairly in the 1980s. That is true of national insurance pensioners and of those families who rely on benefits such as child benefit. That benefit is another casualty of the decade; it has been kept down by successive Chancellors and for the past three years it has been frozen. It is time for a change of policy and we believe that it is time for a new Government. It is certainly time for our country and our people to be given the hope and encouragement to believe that we shall see polices in the 1990s which will fit them to face the changes and challenges ahead. Nowhere are those changes so essential and so important as in education and training.
It is true that welcome political attention has been paid to education and training in recent years. I also welcome the growth of business interest in such training. We are still shockingly and disgracefully far behind other countries in this respect. That those in business are taking a greater interest in education and training is welcome, if somewhat overdue, but in too many cases it remains a rather narrow self-interest.
Reduced secondary school rolls have become reduced numbers of young workers, and employers are experiencing recruitment difficulties. In effect, training is being privatised: the current development of training and enterprise councils gives private sector employers major responsibility for managing Government funds for young people and adult trainees. It is no wonder that such employers are showing keen concern at recent proposals from the Confederation of British Industry for a skills revolution. It is interesting to reflect that the claim for a need for revolution seems to have crossed the political divide. Revolution used to be construed a threatening word. Now, however, it is more widely recognised than ever before that, if our country is to be fit to compete and to win in the 1990s, a revolution is exactly what we need. Private sector spending on training is low, however, and with certain notable exceptions, the track record is generally poor.
Clearly the pressure must be kept up on the private sector not only to contribute time and expertise to education and training, but to expand in-service education and training opportunities for employees. All that said, however, there can be no escape for Government in the 1990s from undertaking their proper functions. If education and training are the bedrock of the human resources on which a sound and growing economy depends, the Government must ultimately be responsible and take on board, ungrudgingly and unhesitatingly, the expensive business of investing in the people.
At present, a miserable 15 per cent. of our 18-year-olds go on to higher education—the proportion sinks to as low as 4 per cent. in some inner-London areas—compared with 35 per cent. in France and 30 per cent. in Germany. Only about half our 16-year-old school leavers go on to further education, compared with more than 90 per cent. in the United States and more than 70 per cent. in France. According to a recent survey, just over half our work force received no formal in-work training in 1987, rising to two thirds of the work force in manufacturing.
In the early 1980s, we frequently heard from Conservative Members that problems could not be solved by throwing money at them. I am pleased to say that we have not heard that argument even once today. Time and again this decade, a great deal of money has been thrown at a large number of high-income earners. In the coming decade, we want to see more fairness. The people want to see a new social as well as a new economic agenda for Britain. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), have rightly said that our people want to see a new international agenda in the 1990s. Above all, they want to see more fairness in our society.
The shadow Leader of the House should note—

Mr. David Harris: The Leader of the House.

Dr. Cunningham: I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon—he has suffered enough already. I

wonder whether he has received his Christmas card from the Prime Minister yet, if she caught up with his change of address.
On behalf of my hon. Friends, and on behalf of the House, I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman a merry Christmas and a happy, prosperous and peaceful new year. It will not be very peaceful for people on low incomes facing the poll tax in 1990 and it will not be peaceful or prosperous for too many of our fellow citizens who are still looking for an opportunity to get their first job. Above all, the new year will not be peaceful for the ambulance workers of Britain who are entering the Christmas period in a long-running and unnecessary dispute. The Government should seek to solve that dispute before the House rises for the Christmas recess.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I reciprocate the Christmas good wishes of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), coupled with my confident expectation that he will long remain a shadow. We would like to keep him like that.
I should like to raise the slightly dismal tone that the hon. Gentleman managed to convey in his speech by reminding the House that, compared with the situation that we faced 10 years ago when our economic performance was lamentable and almost everything was to be deplored in comparison with our international competitors, our gross domestic product is at its highest ever level, having risen by more than 4 per cent. in the past two years. We have had eight years of successive growth averaging more than 3 per cent.—a strong economic performance not matched since the war. It is that which enables us to address a number of social issues with confidence, and I shall try to do that when I take up a number of points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I join the hon. Member for Copeland in expressing deep concern at the plight of Ian Richter, so eloquently brought to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). We admire the courage of Ian Richter and his family. We shall continue to press at every opportunity for his release on the strongest possible humanitarian grounds. We accept no linkage between Ian Richter's case and that of Salim Hassan, the murderer to whom my hon. Friend referred. I have frequently raised the matter with the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, and I take this opportunity to renew that candid and useful dialogue and urge him to secure the release of Ian Richter as soon as possible.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) rightly drew attention to some of the social problems to which we should pay attention at this and every other time. The Government share his concern for the homeless, but the thrust of our housing policies is aimed at helping those in greatest need by extending the role of housing associations, by expanding the private rented sector and, most recently, by targeting resources —£250 million in London and the south-east—to that issue during the next two years. I share his admiration for the role of voluntary organisations in preventing and relieving homelessness. That is why funding is to be increased in 1990–91 from £680,000 to £2 million.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe asked about the likely outcome of our disability review. We intend soon to announce our proposals on the reconsideration of the balance and structure of benefits for the disabled. During the 10 years that this Government have been in office, the total of resources for the benefit of disabled people has increased in real terms by 90 per cent. Even in the difficult days of my early Budgets, the improvement of prospects for the disabled was a subject to which we never failed to pay attention.
A number of detailed points were raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall not try to deal with them in detail now. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) raised the problem of women who had been widowed, remarried and risked sacrificing the pension they received from their first husband. I shall ensure that he receives a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security about that.
In a characteristically wide-ranging contribution, even in this short debate, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to the problem of the trigger for cold weather benefit payments. We must have a trigger of some kind for those benefits. If necessary, the Department of Social Security will do all it can to ensure that those entitled to payment know when they have to make their claims.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who has the honour of representing my Scottish grandfather's birthplace at Newcastleton, drew attention, in technical detail, to the impact of changes in unemployment benefit. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It has never been our intention that unemployment benefit should provide support for those in part-time work. I appreciate the role of part-time workers in the two industries of which he spoke, but the rules have always provided that only small amounts may be earned while unemployment benefit is being received. The idea is to introduce a more objective test to reinforce that principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) raised three different topics. The first was the state of the Health Service in his part of the country and I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Secondly, he commented on the difficult balance arrived at in the Government's judgment on the Barlow Clowes case and evoked some sympathy from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). He reminded me of a quotation from, I think, Spenser that I often drew on when I was the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs. This makes the point that, if we set out to protect everyone from the consequences of his or her own folly, we shall end up with a world peopled entirely by fools. It is difficult to make the right judgment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale also referred to the long-running baggage handlers' strike at Manchester airport. I join him in his admiration of the importance of Manchester airport. I was also struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). Speaking from my recollection of my representation of a Merseyside constituency, I wonder why we often have two regional airports in different places when one in the middle would have been much better. I

think of Tyneside and Teesside, and even Glasgow and Edinburgh. The airports at Liverpool and Manchester provide another example. The continuation of the strike at Manchester is regrettable, particularly as it arises from the reasons given by my hon. Friend. We hope that negotiations will lead to a return to work as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) was one of a number of hon. Members who spoke about the ambulance dispute. There will be a chance to discuss that in the Adjournment debate some time after midnight tonight, at the suit of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist).
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) raised more than one topic. The one to which he quite rightly attached most importance was an eloquent plea for those constituents who suffered job losses as a result of the closure to which he referred. I should remind the House that overall unemployment has fallen for 40 consecutive months and is at its lowest level for nine years. My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that some of his constituents have already found work in other enterprises on the Isle of Wight. I shall certainly bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport the exclusion of the company to which my hon. Friend referred from the tender list for British Rail orders.
A number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, in conjunction with his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, were critical about what has happened in Panama. I find profoundly disagreeable the contemptuous relish with which both those hon. Members spoke of the actions of a country which they claim to regard as a friend. We welcome, without qualification, the establishment of democratic government in Panama. Action to remove General Noriega has been undertaken with the agreement of those who won the elections held last May. General Noriega has been adjudged by the world to have stolen an election from the people of his country. That is the right basis on which to approach the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) drew our attention to an aspect of the fishing industry which has received less attention than others during the past week or so. We had a debate on it last week and a statement on it this afternoon, and will have another debate during the night. My hon. Friend drew attention to the case for the extension of the limit from two to six miles, the spread of aggregate dredging, and the impact of sewage pollution. There will be a debate on that tonight, led by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). The debate may not cover as much as my hon. Friend would like the problems of the inshore fishing industry, so he was right to draw them to our attention.
The hon. Member for Meironnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) reminded me of my youthful, and sometimes not so youthful, associations with Snowdonia national park. I am always glad to be reminded of that admirable park in the Principality. He drew attention to the need to retain the balance between the amenities of the national park and the livelihood of those who live there. I remember a conversation that I had not long ago with the French Prime Minister, Mr. Rocard, in which I tested even his fluent knowledge of the English language by referring to the role of sheep in upland, touristic areas as four-legged lawn mowers. That concept did not easily translate into


the French language. That illustrates the role of agricultural activity as part of the means of preserving the rural amenity.

Dr. Cunningham: Perhaps it is like being savaged by a four-legged dead lawn mower.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The changes in the hill livestock compensation scheme agreed at the Agriculture Council will not take effect until 1991, so decisions on the consequential effects on national arrangements have yet to be taken. I hope that there will be an announcement early next year on that scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) raised three topics, including hospital radio. On that I hope that he will be content with a benediction from the Government and me. We hope that the negotiations will bring a satisfactory outcome. His plea for a change in the law to allow major lotteries, while being kept under review, has not yet led to plans for legislation. My hon. Friend was advocating two progressive ideas, and I suppose that it was only appropriate that, to maintain the balance of his personality, he closed on a profoundly reactionary note about the impact of television on the House. It is an experiment; I take a less jaundiced view than he does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), in an eloquent plea, described the importance and impact of the Peto Institute and the work that has been done by it in Hungary. My wife and I, since our visits, have taken a close interest in the institute, and, by good fortune, one of my former private secretaries recently came back from a stint as ambassador there. The institute is not often absent from our minds. I had the opportunity to talk to the Hungarian Prime Minister about it last week and to give him an advance intimation of the substantial amount of money that has been made available and to which my hon. Friend referred. We regard it as an important institute, and we regard its impact in this country as of great value.
I noticed my hon. Friend's particularly eloquent plea for his constituent Miss Rogers. We certainly admire the way in which her family have done what they have to keep her at the institute. I shall certainly do what I can to draw my hon. Friend's plea to the attention of the Nottinghamshire education authority, but I cannot give an undertaking beyond that.
It was encouraging that my hon. Friend's speech should have been the last that we heard on the events in eastern Europe, because it was made on a hopeful note. It was striking that many hon. Members spoke about the entire sequence of events taking place in eastern Europe, and I was grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire for the tribute he paid to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who, in a speech of the utmost bevity, dealt with all the key points about eastern Europe. We share his delight at the historic developments taking place there. We want to see the countries of eastern Europe joining the democratic mainstream. We applaud the courage of the new Polish Government in tackling radical economic reform. We are delighted that the longer process of reform in Hungary has culminated in the first free election in eastern Europe for more than 40 years.
We agree with my hon. Friend that progress in the future needs to be gradual and step by step. We welcome the first signs of liberalisation in Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic and Bulgaria, and we are keen to help in whatever ways we can to build up democratic societies and market place economies in those countries.
This is what makes so much the more tragic what has been happening in Romania. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, the hon. Members for Walsall, North and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea all expressed their views about that. We condemn in the strongest terms the attitude of a regime which, turning its back on all the commitments concerning human rights to which it subscribed under the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe framework, is apparently capable of repressing only by force the legitimate aspirations to freedom of the Romanian people. That view was also expressed on Monday in the European Community in Brussels, and we shall hear it echoed in the debate later tonight in which I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the Minister of State, will have a chance to take part.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 21st December do adjourn until Monday 8th January.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54( 1) (Consolidated Fund Bills),That this House do now adjourn.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

Rights of the Child

Mrs. Llin Golding: I heard of a school the other day in which 75 per cent. of the children were having school dinners and in which some of the children were having to be weighed every month to see that they were not losing weight, because those dinners were the only real meals that they had. The school was not in some foreign country; it was a short distance from this House, here in bustling, thriving London.
If we in this country, part of the affluent western world, do not look after our children, we can imagine how much worse it is for children in poorer countries. Who will care for them? Who will provide for and look after the children of some of the world's other great cities and countries? Children are forced to sleep on the streets, forced to beg, driven to crime and prostitution, exploited and degraded. Who will accept responsibility for the 100 million under-fives who, on present trends, will die in the 1990s? Where is the food for the starving children of the world? Where is the medicine for the sick? Who will accept responsibility for providing it? Who will see that laws are strengthened and implemented to prevent the beating, torture and sexual abuse of children?
We in this House must all have the eyes to see, the ears to hear, the hearts to feel and the will to change the indescribable suffering of many helpless and dependent children. That is why we must give total support to the United Nations charter on the rights of the child. That charter, which took 10 long years to produce, clearly establishes children's rights in all areas and across all national boundaries, and gives the responsibilities to all of us. Let us hope that, if Governments of all nations also give the charter their support, it will be the beginning of freedom for all children—freedom from pain, fear and want.
What good is freedom if there is no justice? For too long in this country children have been denied the right to give evidence in our courts. I have many letters from distraught parents telling me of the most disgusting and depraved sexual abuse of children by so-called men—men who have been safe in the knowledge that the younger the child, the less chance there is of it being allowed to give evidence against him. Because of the procedure of English and Welsh courts, children under the age of eight are rarely heard and under the age of five, never; although in Scotland children as young as four are frequently allowed

to testify in courts. Even when children have been called to give evidence they have frequently broken down in the witness box because of the distress caused by having to describe in detail the terrible things that have been done to them, and cases have often been dismissed.
When I was first elected to the House, the Whips in their great wisdom decided that I should serve on the 1986 Criminal Justice Bill Standing Committee, probably because I had absolutely no knowledge of the law. That was when I first realised the lack of justice in our country for children, and I decided then and there to work hard to change the law in their favour.
I was told at great length by many people that the legal profession would never accept change, that politicians would never vote for it and that I would never be able to change the law in the way that I wanted. I was told again, when serving on the 1987 Criminal Justice Bill Standing Committee, that the amendments that I tabled would never be carried. I was told that I would never bring in video links and video recordings, or change the law on corroboration and competence, or get hearsay evidence accepted. I was told that all these things would never come about.
Those who told me this did not, however, count on the army of people outside Parliament who were crying out for changes in the law to allow children justice and to allow them to give evidence in court. They did not count on the number of organisations and of mothers and fathers who would write letters to put pressure on politicians. They did not count on so many people seeing what we and the legal profession could not see: that the law needed to be changed to give justice to our young people.
After the general election of 1987 I served on the Committee considering the second part of the Criminal Justice Bill of 1987–88, and that Bill brought in some of these changes. It introduced visual links and changes to the law on corroboration. It gave heart to all the people who were crying out for further change.
Today, the report has been published of the advisory group on visual evidence, established by the Home Office as a result of public pressure. That group is chaired by that just and caring man, Judge Thomas Pigot, and its recommendations will change the law and bring justice to children. Everything contained in the report is geared to the stress and strain suffered by children. It advocates that the courts should listen to evidence given by children. How can they receive justice if they cannot be heard?
I hope that, when the House considers that report, right hon. and hon. Members will acknowledge that the time has come when this country, as part of its contribution to the rights of the child, should accept the recommendations in that report, allow children to have their voices heard and to receive justice. I trust that the Home Secretary, too, will say that the House should endorse Judge Thomas Pigot's recommendations.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: What better time of the year than Christmas to introduce a debate on the rights of the child, as has been done so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding)? What country could ignore my hon. Friend's eloquent plea for those who should be our particular concern? Section 16 of the convention on the rights of the child should be of most


concern to right hon. and hon. Members. It states, in effect, that every child has the right not only to protection against abuse but to respect—an objective to which the House can make a valuable contribution.
Over the past few months, I have asked the Home Office several questions on child abuse because of my concern about the provision of proper assistance. I was worried by some of the answers that I received, even though they may have been extremely well meant. I asked the Prime Minister whether she was prepared to establish a special unit at No. 10 Downing street to deal specifically with the problem of child abuse because it touches on so many different Departments, and because I consider it essential that the subject should be the responsibility of a central co-ordinating body, but the right hon. Lady was not prepared to do that.
Child abuse is as old as mankind—both himself and herself—and it is a condemnation of the House that changes in the law are still being demanded. Last year, the Childline serving my area of north Staffordshire and south Cheshire received 7,000 calls from young people—7,000 frightened and damaged children needing assistance. Two further hotlines were established and it became clear that many of the adults who wanted to help had no clear idea where they could obtain assistance or report any evidence of child abuse.
The Minister of State, Home Office, who is to respond to the debate, has given the matter deep thought, but even he turned down my request for a publicity campaign specifically aimed at instructing children how to protect themselves.
The Minister replied in a written answer that such advice
is best communicated to children through their parents or other responsible adults. It is for this reason that the Home Office crime prevention handbook reproduces advice for parents to give to their children prepared by the Kidscape organisation."—[Official Report, 15 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 266.]
The problem with that approach is, if the parent himself or herself is the abuser, how is the child to know to whom he or she can turn for assistance?
The figures of child abuse are growing more and more horrifying. In the Survey of Young Persons Register 1988, younger children were more likely to be included than older children. Its figures also show more girls than boys on the register, with the former numbering 20,500 compared with 18,799 boys.
Boys and girls below the age of five were equally likely to be on the register, but boys and girls older than that began to differ in the likelihood of their being registered. More boys tended to be registered under the category of physical abuse, accounting for 35 per cent. compared with 25 per cent. of girls, whereas 22 per cent. of girls were registered under the category of sexual abuse compared with only 8 per cent. of boys. The percentage in that category increased with age. Only 9 per cent. of the cases of sexual abuse affected girls aged between one and four years, whereas 51 per cent. of girls aged 16 to 18 were the subject of sexual abuse.
There is some evidence of discrimination against girls over the age of 12 in sexual abuse cases, and an example of that bias can be found in Lord Chief Justice Lane's most recent guidelines on incest abuse cases. He implied that older incest victims, aged 13 or more, may be culpable.

Who are we to make the value judgment that a 13-year-old boy may be culpable in a case of incest? That is evil and unthinking insensitivity.
It is vital that the House should consider practical ways of providing the sexually abused child with support at the time that he or she most needs it. At such times, the child needs to be believed and to have someone to whom he or she can turn for help. The Home Office believes that the existing child abuse register is adequate, but excellent though it is, one cannot expect a child who is frightened and horrified by what is happening to him or her in their own home to know where to find a list of organisations dealing with child abuse.
Why cannot social services departments publicise an easily remembered telephone number on which help and advice is always available? Why cannot local libraries and other places that children may visit also publicise such a service? Why are more positive attempts not made to provide specific training for social workers and those working in education, not only to identify signs of sexual abuse quickly but to take concrete action at the point at which it can really help the child, before he or she is irreparably damaged? Unfortunately, the abused child of today is frequently the abusing parent of tomorrow. We must attempt to break that circle at every opportunity.
I do not want to abuse the time of the House, but I could speak at great length on this subject, about which I feel deeply—as, I am sure, do all right hon. and hon. Members—although I am sometimes tempted to despair of a society in which, in a week in which three of the most brutal child murders ever recorded were committed, I received 25 letters about the deaths of dogs. I am not sure that our country has its priorities right, and the Government have a duty to do something about that state of affairs.

Mr. John P. Smith: I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the Adjournment debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), because I have a particular constituency interest in the subject of the rights of the child, relating specifically to the rights of severely mentally and physically handicapped children.
I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the preamble to the convention. It states
that the family … should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community.
The preamble continues:
Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding".
I stress the importance of those last few words.
I am sure that few hon. Members do not share the sentiments expressed in the convention, and no doubt we all agree that they should apply as much to children who are severely handicapped, mentally or physically, as to those who are healthy and able-bodied. That is why I am so distressed that that right was nearly denied to the loving and caring family of a young constituent of mine called Carys Saif, and I fear that many other children and their families may also be denied it.
Just over 12 months ago, Carys Saif tragically fell ill and suffered serious brain damage. As hon. Members can imagine, her parents, Alan and Jane Saif, were devastated.


Carys immediately underwent National Health Service treatment consisting of heavy medication along with some physiotherapy, but it was eventually decided that there was no chance of her recovery.
Because of their love for their daughter and their commitment to her, the parents became dissatisfied with the treatment after a time and began—as, I believe, have many other parents—to seek alternative treatment of the kind that is provided for the children whom our Health Service writes off from time to time. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) refer earlier to the work of the Peto Institute in Hungary, and I am pleased to learn that the Government have allocated funding to it: the institute provides one of the forms of alternative treatment available to physically and mentally handicapped children whose parents will accept any opportunity that may offer some hope.
Mr. and Mrs. Saif approached the Kerland foundation, which is based in Bridgwater, Somerset. With the assistance of the community of Barry, they raised a considerable sum to finance the expensive alternative treatment offered by the foundation. Like many of this country's communities, the town proved extremely generous, and the child began a course of treatment in June this year.
While the treatment was under way, however, the parents were still obliged to take the child for regular NHS check-ups. Unbelievably, on 6 December they were asked to attend the clinic at the University hospital of Wales to meet the medical social worker and the consultant paediatric neurologist. They had expected just another medical examination, but they were effectively told that unless they ceased to receive the foundation's treatment, particularly the drug reduction treatment, there was a possibility that their child would be taken into care. Mrs. Saif was told that a case conference would be held in 72 hours, and that the Kerland foundation would not be involved.
Apparently, the consultant neurologist at the Heath hospital was not interested in the course of treatment that Carys was receiving, and as a result she and the social worker were prepared to recommend in the case conference that the child should be taken into care. Carys's mother was told that, if the conference went against the parents, the child could be taken from them within 24 hours, on the grounds of medical negligence or the possibility of her life being endangered.
That is outrageous. The parents had already suffered the devastation of their child being damaged for life; just over a year later—again, just before Christmas—their lives were devastated once more, out of the blue, when they were told that the child might be taken from them. I intervened to prevent that, I am glad to say, but I am extremely concerned about how the circumstances arose in the first place.
Carys Saif is one of three young children in the town of Barry alone who are currently receiving alternative medical treatment in private clinics—financed, incidentally, by the community, thanks to some tremendous fund-raising work. I am afraid that dozens, if not hundreds, of parents throughout the country may also have turned to alternative treatment, and that they may find themselves in the same position as the Saif family.

There is a danger that their lives, too, may be devasted. Although we managed to stop Carys being taken into care, as her parents were effectively forced to readminister the drugs prescribed by the NHS, her seven or eight months of treatment by the Kerland foundation was severely undermined, as was the hope and commitment of the parents.
I do not profess to be qualified to judge which was the right form of treatment—that offered by the NHS or the alternative offered by the Kerland foundation. That, however, is not the point at issue: the point is that there was clearly a conflict of view among the professionals, and that the child and her family were the victims. I have a sneaking feeling that the same thing is happening elsewhere, and that is why I, along with my hon. Friends, ask the Government to sign the convention as soon as possible, and to offer protection not just to the children of this country and the world but to their families.
I also believe that the Government should seriously consider the possibility of introducing legislation that would provide a framework to regulate the relationship between professionals, to ensure that parents and, in particular, children are not caught in the middle; and to ensure that no one else need go through the horrifying experience undergone by Alan, Jane, Rhianna and little Carys Saif on 6 December this year.

Dr. John Reid: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on raising this issue. I admit to some disappointment, as I gaze across the vast expanse of empty green leather seats this evening. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, this year we have seen the most callous, brutal cases of child cruelty, widespread publicity given to child abuse and the public response to children in Ethiopia and at home. We are also beginning to understand how many children are missing. I sometimes wonder whether we have our priorities right, when I consider the number of hon. Members who attend debates on this subject, but we have an obligation to debate it.
The House likes to look upon itself as a great forum for the nation. We like to think that we represent the various sections of British society, and that we can do that because they are represented here. We discuss the problems of old-age pensioners. I have no doubt that we do it better because there are one or two in House. We discuss the problems of the unemployed, and the sceptics say that we do that better because we have our fair share of them in the House. We discuss the problems of the disabled, and hon. Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) bring their expertise to that debate because of their handicap and the difficulties they face.
One section of British society cannot raise its interests in the House—the children. We have a greater obligation towards that section of the community than towards any other, because they cannot be here to speak for themselves.
Later, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) will cover an extensive range of the items referred to in the convention on the rights of the child, if she manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
To elucidate and inform the House, I shall quote from article 32.1. of the draft convention which states:


Parties recognise the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.
Article 32(2) states:
Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and eucational measures to ensure the implementation of this article.
I honestly believe that the Government are in no position to implement that article in a manner that is commensurate with the spirit of the convention.
The present law on child employment in Britain is a hotch-potch of national laws that, in some cases, date back 50 or 60 years, and of local government byelaws. It is poorly enforced, easily misunderstood and widely abused.
The Government cannot plead ignorance. They must be aware that children continue to play a significant, if hidden, role in the British work force. As with many other problems, there are no official statistics on truancy or on the number of missing children. It is worth noting that we have a list of missing dogs in Britain, but no official statistics on missing children. Similarly, there is a chronic lack of centralised, accurate information about children in the work force. Because of the lack of statistics, it is difficult to assess accurately the number of children who are illegally employed.
Fortunately, despite the lack of official national statistics, we can make an educated guess at the extent of the problem. The estimates make grim reading. Surveys from the Low Pay Unit, the latest covering 1982–83, suggest that as many as one in three children between the ages of 11 and 15 work outside school hours. A more staggering statistic is that, of those who work, no fewer than 80 per cent.—four out of five—are thought to be illegally employed. That is a staggering figure because it shows that between 1 million and 2 million children between the ages of 11 and 15 are illegally employed in Britain. Children are the most vulnerable and exploitable source of cheap labour in Britain, and they are being harnessed in pursuit of private profit.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all is the fact that illegal and exploitative child employment is becoming institutionalised in many families as children from poorer households are more likely to be employed than anyone else in the family. Poverty and family unemployment force the integration of the child's income as a standard unit in the family budget of some of the poorest households. The exploitation of child labour on the scale that I have described is not so much a blot on the collective conscience of the nation—it is nothing short of a national scandal. The effects are at best the arrestment of a child's educational and social development. At worst, their lives are endangered.
The Low Pay Unit survey bears grim testimony to the damaging consequences of illegal child employment on school performance and in a child's social life. Educational welfare officers, teachers and head teachers testify that truancy, tiredness and behavioural difficulties are all associated with out-of-school work and, in many cases, illegal out-of-school work.
Even worse than the arrestment of a child's social and educational development are the risks to life and limb associated with illegal child employment. We already know of serious injuries caused by machinery and sharp knives, but some children are exposed to chemicals and

other harmful or dangerous substances. Still others are employed in agriculture and building, which are among the most hazardous occupations even for adults.
The Government can no longer evade their responsibilities in this matter. Given the scale and nature of the problem the need for urgent Government action should be self-evident. I do not want to be over-critical as it is difficult to believe that any hon. Member would condone economic exploitation of children. As a politician said some years ago, to remain silent and inactive in the face of such evil or exploitation is to condone and encourage it in effect if not in theory. It is tragic that that seems to be the Government's stance. On 11 July, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) asked the Secretary of State for Employment
when he intends to bring into force the Employment of Children Act 1973.
Not 1983 or 1988, but 1973. The Minister replied:
I have been asked to reply.
The Government have no plans to implement the Employment of Children Act 1973."—[Official Report, 11 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 462.]
It is a disgrace that, despite all-party support for it, the Employment of Children Act 1973 has sat idle on the statute book for 16 years and still awaits the signature of the Secretary of State to give it effect. There can be no greater sign of the Government's dereliction of duty in this regard. They will pay for that, because those who do not take seriously the trust of the country's future will in due course be rewarded by the people whom they have neglected. No Government who failed adequately to protect children can have any faith in the future, and no people can have any faith in that Government.

Miss Joan Lestor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) for choosing this subject for debate. Like others, I regret that only a small number of hon. Members are present, but I understand why that is so. It is important, especially at this time of year, to consider the convention on the rights of the child and what is happening to children in Britain.
On 23 November, I wrote to the Prime Minister following reports in the national press that the Government might have difficulty in implementing all the convention on the rights of the child because of the problems of family reunification and immigration. A day or two later I received a reply saying that my letter had been passed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I still have not received a reply to my detailed question. I found that rather strange because it occurred to me that the Prime Minister's office considered that the convention on the rights of the child had no domestic application in Britain. I was talking about families in Britain and the need for them to have the greatest possible unity under present-day law.
It is important to remember that many of the discussions about the convention on the rights of the child —I have attended a considerable number in the past 10 years—have been on children in Third-world countries. Those of us who have travelled extensively in many parts of the world know that in many Third-world countries children are militarised, starving, hungry, degraded and exploited. It is a very sad picture. Some of it is caused by


natural disasters, some by inadequate investment in aid programmes and some by sheer poverty which forces people to do things because of their circumstances.
I wish to concentrate on children in Britain. As we move into 1990, we should not believe or allow it to be thought that we are a shining example to the rest of the world and that all is well in Britain in 1989.
It is 10 years since the discussion on the convention started and since the Conservative Government took office. Christmas is approaching and many of us have spent a great deal of money on our children; we see on television all the wonderful things that are available to them but not to all children. I do not expect answers to all the questions that I intend to raise this evening as they require further thought, but they concern the children who will not be included in the great family festival that we all enjoy.
How many people under 18 will spend Christmas on remand in adult prisons? The figures published recently should be a source of great shame to all of us. The Children's Society recently reported that 98,000 children go missing every year. It is true that many of them turn up, having run away because of a domestic upheaval, but many are never found or, if they are, they cannot return home.
We have no national register of missing children—the figures to which I refer were compiled by the Children's Society in conjunction with certain police authorities—so Government sources do not tell us the reasons why children run away or disappear. We have to find out from other sources. I pay tribute to many agencies which do excellent work. Some children run away from unhappy homes because unfortunately not all children have loving and caring parents. Many of them run away from local authority care.
It must be stressed, too, that many children who run away are not reported missing. Only 39 per cent. of the children in a London refuge centre last year had been reported missing, so the figures must be greater than we know. The children there were aged between 14 and 16 and the youngest was seven. One in five of those children had run away because of sexual abuse or the threat of sexual abuse. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme raised that issue, because we are all beginning to recognise that it has been under-estimated in Britain and we still do not know its extent.
In 1979 the Council of Europe recommended that member states should have a national register of missing children so that some information could be made available. Unfortunately, that still does not exist in Britain. We have to add to that sad saga the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who may be called runaways and who do not receive the benefits and allowances which should be available to them. Many answers have been given about that group. We have been told that they should be at home or working on youth training schemes. The tragedy is that many young people are unable to live at home for a variety of reasons. Unless we examine violence and sexual abuse within the family, it is useless saying, "It is better that you go home." We must find out what causes young people to run away.
As the House knows, children who run away, sleep out and lead a hand-to-mouth existence are easy meat for evil people who are on the lookout for the vulnerable. Many become involved in crime and prostitution. The Salvation Army reported that, of 1,500 teenagers in the Centre Point refuge in 1988, one in three had been approached for prostitution—that applied to boys and girls alike—and many get involved in the vicious circle of drug abuse.
Recently, other issues affecting children have come to our notice; I am glad that they have, because some of us have been worried about them for a long time. National figures for truancy are not available. I am aware of the difficulties in obtaining them, but other countries manage to do so. I know from concerned agencies that truancy is increasing in primary schools. As it is difficult to obtain national figures, we do not know how children spend their time or what happens to them. According to work that has been done on this, many of them hang around slot machines and amusement arcades day in and day out until it is time to go home. Some register at school but then disappear.
Certain conferences have asked children, "Why are you not at school? What is the problem?" The reply that many of them give relates to another subject that we must do much more work on in the House—bullying. Bullying at school appears much higher on the agenda than it did before. Parents say to their children, "You must stand up for yourself," but the child would not be bullied if it was capable of doing that. Many people believe that we have under-estimated the amount of bullying at school. Some children bully for reasons of which hon. Members will be aware, but others do so for money or because of fear and intimidation. If we are concerned about what is happening to our children as we approach the 1990s, education authorities must pay more attention to what goes on in the playground.
Articles 26 and 27 of the convention refer to the rights of the child to health, good housing and nutrition. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) mentioned free school meals and the difficulty of ensuring that a child has a proper diet.
Child benefit has been frozen for the third year in succession, which has pushed many children back into poverty. In my area of Salford, where people are not rich, the Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that £4 million is owed to Salford's children because child benefit has not been increased by as much as we were led to believe it would be by the Tory manifesto and by past good practice. That is a lot of money, and the result of the freeze is that many children will spend this Christmas in poverty —ill-clothed, ill-fed, ill-housed and without the basic attractions which make Christmas the festivity that we all enjoy.
In 1986, five of the 15 intensive care units at Saint Mary's hospital in Manchester were taken out of service. In 1987, Hope hospital in my constituency reported that 65 of 198 infants who required intensive care could not be accepted—they had to shop around and find somewhere else to go. We must ask, are the lives of our babies to rely on "Blue Peter" appeals for used cans? However great British people are about charity and donations—we know they are from what they have done in the Third world and for Children in Need in this country—it is not good enough to say, "We are cutting down the services but if you want them please collect cans and we will provide them." As someone whose grandchild was in an intensive


care unit a few months ago, where the care was remarkable, I find it unbearable to think that that care could be denied to other children or that they have to be taken somewhere else for it. That is disgraceful in a country which claims to have done so well economically for its people.
The National Carers Association recently reported that 10,000 children under the age of 18 are the main carers for a sick or disabled relative who may be a parent or a child. Their lives hardly conform to the ideals of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Their access to education and their rights to play and to develop are denied them. Again, the lack of services in this country means that children are being used to provide them. That is disgraceful and something that we should be examining.
Any of us who have attended international conventions and conferences dealing with children's rights have come up against international concerns, one of which is drugs. Drugs are an international problem and the children using drugs are becoming younger. I was recently in Jamaica with a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House. We had a long discussion with a drugs expert about drugs, young people in Jamaica, the way in which drugs are coming into Europe and the age at which children are using them.
The illegal trafficking and adoption of children is also of international concern. Reports from the Council of Europe and other sources show that some children are illegally taken across borders and brought to Europe. There have even been one or two cases of them being admitted to this country. I do not blame the Government for that, but there needs to be international action if children are not to be bought and sold on the market like cattle. That is what it amounts to. If one has the money and knows where to go, one can buy a child. The people who buy those children may have been turned down by adoption agencies and have certainly never been vetted in any way. It is appalling that we do not pay more attention to the sort of lives that many of our own children are likely to lead.
There are also reports of satanic rituals and sadistic practices involving children in pornography, in this country and in many other parts of the world. It is not a pretty picture. The convention on the rights of the child is an attempt to apply international standards to which we can all work and through which we can bring some benefit to children as time goes on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned child sexual abuse. I did some work on that subject when I was temporarily resting and was not a Member of Parliament, between 1983 and 1987, and I share her concern. She also mentioned the problem which arises when some children—not all—who have been sexually abused turn into abusers. Many of them manage to lead satisfactory lives despite the horrendous things that have happened to them. Society is again in a dilemma. We have sympathy for the child victim, but when that victim becomes the assailant, our understanding vanishes. We need to do a great deal more work to find out what causes it and what we can do to help children and young people who have been thus abused.
Many of us have learnt in recent years that social workers and doctors are in an almost impossible position when dealing with sexual abuse or violence against children. In the Cleveland affair, the doctors and social workers were accused of being too decisive, too sure,

acting too quickly and not waiting. In the case of children who have died recently—I am thinking particularly of a little girl beaten to death, but there have been others—social workers were accused of dilly-dallying, of not taking action, not moving quickly enough and of not having the foresight to see what was going to happen.
Society cannot have it both ways. We cannot condemn people who move because they are afraid of what may happen and take precautions and at the same time condemn them if they do not move but say, "Let us wait and see—it may not be as bad as we think." We do not hear about the successes of social workers—only about their failures. They walk a tightrope. We must decide whether we want people to be more decisive and perhaps make mistakes rather than condemn a child to slow murder, brutality and abuse because we thought that we might be wrong and that we could wait a little longer.
There is no clear answer to these problems, and I do not pretend that there is one. However, we cannot have it both ways. There are enormous problems of judgment in trying to understand the way in which other people live. I am sorry that more training for social workers has not been forthcoming. The social workers wanted it and it would have helped us all.
A small problem at the moment, but one that is likely to grow—although I hope that I am wrong in that assumption—is that of children born with AIDS or born HIV-positive. A few years ago, society did not want to discuss child sexual abuse and it was kept very quiet. We could not believe it then and many people cannot believe it now, but we had to face up to it. The same applies to AIDS.
In 1989, 34 children under the age of 14 had been born with AIDS and 309 were HIV-positive. I hope that some of the recent information about a possible cure for AIDS is right. I hope that we can stem the flow. At the moment, however, the problem is expected to increase. In America, the spread of AIDS among women and children has leapt ahead of the capacity of the services to cope with it.
We have some time to prepare here. We must consider seriously the fact that many children will be orphaned or live short lives because of AIDS. Only a small number of children may be affected in that way, but that is not the point. Children have the right to expect to be given long-term support and that the agencies involved ensure that those children have access to education, help and everything else that any child in this country has a right to expect. We must do much more preventive work in all areas connected with sexual activity, with our children and with parenting, if we are to overcome some of the problems to which I have referred.
We will hear much more about children in this country over the next few months and years because we have only just begun to open the door on some of the horrors that many of us did not want to see. Those horrors may apply to a small number of children, but they apply to more than we had thought. We must address the problems.
My plea today is that when we consider the convention on the rights of the child we should not be too lofty and too confident that we have it right. Instead of pointing the finger at other countries and saying that they should be like us—in terms of some of the services that we offer, it would be great if they were like us—we must also consider the children in our society, babies and older, who fall


through the net and are victims of abusers, sometimes of cruelty and also, I am afraid, of a country which has not yet made the provision for children that it should.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): This has been a very wide-ranging and interesting debate and I hope to deal with some of the major themes, if not with every detail, raised by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). It is good to speak after the hon. Lady, and I congratulate her on her recent appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that this will not be the last occasion that she will have an opportunity to debate these matters. I was most interested to hear what she had to say.
I join the hon. Member for Eccles in congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on her good fortune in securing this debate and on the way in which she introduced it. It is the second excellent and moving speech that I have heard her make in the past two weeks. The last one was made during the war crimes debate last week. I had only six minutes in which to reply to that debate, so I was unable to do proper justice to her speech. Once again, we have seen the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme demonstrate not only her care but her deep knowledge of these issues, which she displayed also in successive sittings of the Standing Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Bills in 1987 and 1988. Perhaps that is enough praise, even at Christmas time. I do not want to damage the hon. Lady's standing with her general management committee.
The convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly exactly a month ago today. It is now open for signature and ratification. The Government will examine it to see on what terms we may be able to ratify. I cannot say this evening, nor do I honestly believe that hon. Members would expect me to, how long that will take. Nor would it be right for me, at this early stage in the necessary examination of the convention against our law and practice, to try to give any indications of provisions against which the United Kingdom might have reservations, for example. It will be quite a complex business looking at the convention and testing it against our laws and practice. However, I can say plainly that the Government welcome the convention and are utterly committed to its broad thrust. We will give it most careful examination.
The convention comprises about 40 articles, and it ranges widely over the rights of the child. It pays particular attention to a child's right to life and development. It covers his or her name and nationality. It has regard, as it should, to parents' rights and duties in relation to the child. I hope and believe that it incorporates provisions that would be generally applicable to people of all ages, such as freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom from maltreatment, and protection from cruelty. They are matters from which we hope that people of whatever age in whatever country would always be protected. The convention covers health, welfare and education, and there are provisions dealing with economic exploitation.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) drew attention to article 16 of the convention,

and the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) drew attention to article 32 and to allegations about the economic exploitation of children and young persons. I shall certainly draw his speech to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment who has responsibility for such matters.
The convention is directed to the full gamut of member states of the United Nations. Of course, they have widely differing social and economic conditions, but I certainly would not wish to suggest that Her Majesty's Government regard the convention as an instrument for pressing less-developed countries to improve their standards. I agree with the hon. Member for Eccles. It is right that fortunate countries such as ours should also examine what more they can do to protect, foster and improve children's rights. This is not simply a mechanism for trying to get other countries up to western European or north American standards.
The theme of prevention has run through the debate. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has a deep interest in these issues—in the past year I have answered enough parliamentary questions from her to learn that —and is concerned about prevention and trying to inform children who may be open to abuse of where they can turn. She believes, too, that there should be a central authority charged with the responsibility of tackling child abuse. The police have clear responsibility for investigating all allegations of child abuse that are put to them. They do so with increasing sensitivity, just as they try better to treat women who have been raped or subjected to domestic violence.
The police involve social service departments, education departments and the Churches, all of which need to be involved. One would have to demonstrate clearly that the police were failing in their duty—which I know that those concerned do not wish to do—or that they were simply unable to carry out that task before the Government would want to go down the road that the hon. Lady has suggested.

Mrs. Dunwoody: There appears to be a slight misunderstanding. I am not suggesting in any way that we should alter the role of the police, who do an extremely good job and are often the only real social workers available, but I am concerned at the plethora of Ministries involved with this in Whitehall. It is vital that the child knows where to turn. I do not know of many abused children who would willingly go into a police station of their own volition. We need a central register and a central co-ordinating authority somewhere in Whitehall that will bring the whole thing together and begin to operate a framework to which the ordinary child can respond.

Mr. Patten: The Department of Health and the Home Office—the two Departments that are very much in the lead in this area—work in close co-operation, especially when trying to deal with the problem of to whom a girl or boy can turn when he or she is being maltreated, and especially when they are being maltreated within the family. Maltreatment by someone whom he or she loves must be one of the most difficult things for a child to bear. I recognise the predicament of a child who is caught in that way. We have tended to support the code of advice that has been drawn up by the independent body known as Kidscape.
Among other techniques for dealing with the problem, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich would like us to have a national advertising campaign to inform abused children where they can go. The hon. Lady and myself share exactly the same aims. The difference between us has nothing to do with expenditure, ideology or party politics. It has everything to do with what actually works. There is an inherent danger about national advertising campaigns that are aimed at heightening in children's minds the fact that there are both child abusers and people to whom they can turn.
The danger is common to all crime prevention advertising. By advertising the ways in which we can prevent certain crimes, we unnecessarily exacerbate fear of that crime. Administrations all over the world that are interested in crime prevention face the problem all the time that the advertising campaigns themselves can sometimes backfire. I would hate the majority of children to feel that they were threatened all the time by adults, because they should regard adults as their friends.
I am prepared to consider with an open mind the suggestions that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has put to me, although at the moment I am nervous about going down the road that she has suggested. If she will come to see me in the new year, I shall be happy to discuss these points in greater detail.
On parental responsibilities, we must put parents first. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) stressed the role of the family and mentioned a constituency case. I hope that he will forgive me because I am not aware of the full background to that case, although I listened carefully to what he said. I agree that, when putting children first, one must look first to the family to solve all the problems. I was especially interested in his comments about the Peto Institute. If I may say so through him to his constituents, I think that the people of Barry have done a great deal through public appeals to help the children involved.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was particularly interested in children's evidence in court. She has campaigned about this for some years, along with several other hon. Members of all parties and a number of interested bodies outside the House. Indeed, I have made a speech or two myself on this issue over the years. In seeking to find the hon. Lady's speeches in the Committee on the Criminal Justice Act I not only found some of hers, but chanced on one or two of my own as well. I thought that her speeches and mine read rather well and that they will stand the test of time when we reach our retirements.
I clearly remember our debates. It is the most terrible ordeal for any child who has been the victim of abuse to appear in a Crown court. We must do what we can to alleviate that, and we have already done a great deal. We have changed the rules of corroboration and introduced live video links for evidence in courts. That practice is spreading, although some courts still stick to the screen system, which also appears to be effective. There is no perfect model.
We wanted to determine whether we should go further, so we set up an advisory group under the chairmanship of Judge Thomas Pigot, the Common Sergeant of the City of London. It included distinguished representatives from the police, the social services, academic lawyers and others. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are grateful to Judge Pigot for his excellent report. I am

only sorry that he recently suffered a stroke. I hope that he will soon be able to continue his invaluable work on this topic.
The report is radical and it recommends that video-recorded evidence should be available in Crown courts—for child witnesses under the age of 14. Where the offence is of a sexual nature, that should be extended to children under the age of 17, because of the delicacy of the situation.
The group dealt with how such video recordings should be used. It suggested that, if a video-recorded statement was to be admitted, in whole or in part, there should first be an informal pre-trial review out of court, conducted as soon as practicable. The child witness would be shown the recording and asked to confirm his or her statement and to expand upon anything that he might have missed out so that the prosecution could explore it. At that stage, the defence would be given an opportunity to cross-question the child.
It is important to realise that, even where video-recorded evidence was admitted into court, the child would still be subject to the stress of cross-examination, whether sympathetic or unsympathetic. I can only advise the House that it would be impossible to circumvent that procedure and preserve the right of the defence to test the evidence. Of course, it does not necessarily follow that a person accused of child abuse is guilty of that child abuse.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Hear, hear.

Mr. Patten: I welcome the hon. Lady's support. It must be awful to be wrongly gaoled for murder, and it must be pretty awful to be wrongly gaoled for child abuse. We all know the hatred of fellow prisoners for those who have been convicted of child abuse or sexual offences.

Mrs. Golding: It must be worse for an accused person not to be able to go to court to defend himself, as is the case under present law. That is not justice for the accused.

Mr. Patten: No, and that is a balance that Judge Pigot was trying to strike.
Under Judge Pigot's proposals, under no circumstances would the child have to appear in open court to give evidence in person during the trial. If it should prove necessary to recall a child witness who had been cross-examined at a preliminary hearing, the further hearing would be outside the framework of the formal court and would be held under exactly the same conditions as the preliminary hearing. I hope that it would be as informal as possible, which would help the child. There would be a video recording of that further hearing, which would then be presented to the jury at the trial.
The report includes some important proposals for child witnesses. It was published only recently, and I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to read it and, within the consultation time, make their suggestions known to the Government, who have an open mind. This evening I cannot commit the Government to introducing legislation to implement the recommendations. We wish to hear what others have to say first. Several matters of both practice and principle will have to be dealt with during the consultation process.
The Government welcome the Pigot report as an impressive contribution to knowledge and debate. Whether the group's proposals, or something like them,


strike the right balance between the need to protect vulnerable child witnesses, not least so as to ensure that the guilty are convicted—which is important—and the right of the accused to a fair trial, will be for Parliament to resolve when any proposals are put forward. Our misgivings within Government are confined closely to the question whether the proposals would work out in practice as intended.
We do not have many inhibitions about the intent, but we are worried whether the proposals, if they became law, would have the desired effect. Sometimes, when changing the criminal law, the changes do not have the effect that one set out to achieve. We recognise that the criminal justice system is a complex apparatus. It is not always possible to predict what impact changes will have, simply because magistrates and judges may use the provisions in the new law in a way that we did not foresee. That is why we welcome the views and advice of others.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on her excellent speech and the debate that she has promoted. It has given the House much food for thought.

West Midlands (Economy)

Mr. Lewis Stevens: I have been fortunate enough to come second in the ballot. My debate is on the west midlands.
I hope that it is appropriate for me to mention the recently deceased hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire, Mr. Heddle. He was a good friend and colleague. I pay tribute to the work that he did not only for his constituents but, in conjunction with his west midlands colleagues, for a wider group of people. His advice and energy will be greatly missed. On behalf of my colleagues in the west midlands, I send our deepest sympathy to his relatives at this tragic time.
The west midlands has recovered remarkably well economically and is now in a far better position than we envisaged at the beginning of the 1980s. That is startlingly highlighted by the change in the number of unemployed in the west midlands area. In the early and mid-1980s, unemployment in the west midlands was much higher than those of us who have lived there for many years ever anticipated.
The west midlands was once a booming area in terms of skills, choice of jobs and wages. Everything was improving for many years for the working people of the area. We could see little end to that success—and then, in the 1970s, it ended abruptly. Since then, unemployment in the area has fallen from over 15 per cent. to about the national average. In my constituency, unemployment has fallen to under 5 per cent., which has given rise to the other problem of skill shortages.
The west midlands has improved enormously. A variety of changes has taken place which is not completely due to the efforts of the west midlands. It is easy to assume that our style of industry has existed for many generations. In fact, it has continually changed. This century there has been a change from many tiny industries and backyard companies to larger ones.
Until well into the century, there were few extremely large firms within the west midlands. The region contained a mixture of small and medium-sized firms that covered a tremendous range of industries. Strangely enough, as we have overcome the problems of the 1970s and early 1980s, the range of skills and of work undertaken within the west midlands have grown. Some of the old skills, such as nail making and chain making, disappeared long ago, but now many new skills have been introduced associated with high technology and science-based industries.
It is important to consider how the new developments will cope with the immediate problems. We are told that 1990 could be a hard year and that the economic growth generated by the Government's policies of the past few years may slow down. The west midlands is still heavily dependent on engineering and manufacturing. Those industries are important in terms not only of jobs, but of exports. Much of our export growth depends on the manufacturing industries, and if the growth of those industries slows it will affect our exports. The impetus for growth has been with us for a few years, but if growth slows down, it may become difficult to regain the momentum which is so important to future growth.
Investment is one thing that affects momentum and growth in the engineering and manufacturing industries. At the moment, our interest rates are high, as the


Government have rightly decided that such interest rates are necessary to guard against high inflation. High interest rates, however, often lead to a reduction in investment in the manufacturing and engineering industries.
I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs is on the Front Bench as he also represents a constituency in the west midlands and he understands its problems. Perhaps my hon. Friend could pass on to his Treasury colleagues our concern that investment might be affected by the present high interest rates. Perhaps the Government should consider offering some help to keep the momentum going.
It may be worth considering some tax changes on, for example, depreciation of capital plant and machinery. At the moment, a 25 per cent. allowance is available for the first year, but perhaps that could be increased. Perhaps some better incentives could be introduced to allow some total write-offs during the first year. Tax incentives on investment should also be considered, as the immediate economic future will largely depend on such investment in engineering and manufacturing.
As a result of grants from the Department of Trade and Industry, as well as advice, we have seen the development of new industries. In the west midlands there are two excellent science parks at Warwick and Aston universities. Some of the old skills and the old knowledge have been the basis on which new ideas, such as courses on advanced manufacturing techniques, have been developed. Such developments are extremely important, as one of the keys to our competitiveness and to the improvement in the west midlands has been the improvement in productivity. It could be cynically suggested that there have been significant increases in productivity in certain industries because they were not very good in the first place and that, therefore, the rate of improvement was bound to be exceptional. It has been exceptional.
We must improve, and continue to improve, our productivity if we are to be competitive. In about two years' time, in 1992, we shall have the single market. For many of our industries in the west midlands, that is an opportunity and not something about which to be pessimistic. As competition grows, so does the emphasis on productivity. Many of our industries and many of those involved in them fail to make productivity one of the highest priorities. However, for most manufacturing units it is the key to their future success, investment and development.
This does not mean that things will be cheap. We shall not have cheap labour; we must increase the return on the resources that we put in. We want to obtain a better output rate from the resource of capital and people. That is how we have improved, particularly in the west midlands. It is why industry is returning there and new industry is coming in. Productivity must be one of our highest priorities if we wish to maintain that development.
We are attracting industry throughout the region. New industries, such as the distribution industry, have been attracted to my own area of Warwickshire. If we are to attract such industries, we need good infrastructure systems. A motorway runs through the middle of my constituency, and there is a rail network from north, south, east and west. The constituency is therefore ideally placed. That in itself creates traffic flow problems.
There are moves to improve the infrastructure within the west midlands and I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will go into that in detail. Organisations such as

the urban development corporations enable such moves to happen faster. We must not allow red tape and bureaucracy to interfere with what we are doing and slow up the improvements. Often hon. Members are carried away with their bureaucratic and overall planning sense. We know how we want to plan and achieve our aims. However, industry, commerce and our general structure develop as individual parts. Although there may be some co-ordination at a higher level, we need the ability to get on with the job and make decisions quickly. The Black Country urban development corporation can move much faster than it could under any of the previous systems.
There is another sense of urgency. Not only are there insufficient skills in some trades, but they often occur in surprising trades. There are skill shortages among turners and grinders. Whoever thought that districts such as Coventry and Birmingham would be short of such skills, but they are. Shortages also occur because of demographic change which brings to the fore the importance of training.
The six training and enterprise councils to be set up in the west midlands will have a key role to play in the development of training. The emphasis is on speed. We want the TECs not only to work, but to work quickly. If the momentum for change, improvement and growth in the west midlands is to continue at the necessary pace, the TECs have an important role to play.
Many organisations—enterprise agencies, and county and district councils—have played an important part in the development. However, it is essential to keep up the momentum. The west midlands will face competition from abroad and from other parts of the country. We are not the only industrial region, although we may think that we are the most important and the best, and many other areas compete fairly with us to attract new industries and trades.
Engineering remains the key in our area and in this country. It is one of the main wealth-producing industries, and such industries cannot be replaced by service industries. Perhaps not many jobs will return to manufacturing and engineering, but it is essential to maintain the volume of output. We must use new methods and systems, even though we do not need the same size of manual work force.
There has been a change in our engineering industries. The number of jobs in them is now more constant and there are fewer redundancies, but change is continuing and many former manual jobs have become more technical and professional—and that puts the emphasis on training.
The future of engineering is the future of the west midlands. I hope that the Government will continue their policies of economic growth and that they will not ignore the great claims of manufacturing and engineering, claims which are those of the west midlands.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: These debates provide all of us who bother to apply to initiate them with the opportunity to discuss matters of great importance to our areas, and nothing is of more importance in the west midlands than manufacturing industry.
It is easy, as we did in the past, to blame trade unions and to say that industry would have done better had it not been for the Red Robbos of this world—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and I know so well. British Leyland had its problems, to be


sure; it became Austin-Rover and it is now Rover, and trade unions and their members had to understand that things had to change if manufacturing industry was to prosper.
Time has moved on since 1979 and the unions have changed, whether because of legislation or by inclination. Capitalism has to move on as well. I have been involved in raising money for manufacturing industry in the west midlands and Birmingham, so I know that some things must change. Mr. Branson, of Virgin, got tired of being quoted on the public stock exchange, and one or two other companies have also tired of that. They feel unappreciated. Branson sold out to a Japanese company, not because he wanted to be disloyal to this country—he made quite a few millions on the deal—but because, as he said, too many people in this country who invest in shares and companies think of the long term as six to 12 months, whereas the Japanese and Germans are willing to think of the long term as five to 10 years.
In the same way that trade unions learned their lesson, capitalism in this country must learn that long-term investment is not a matter of six to 12 months but, as the Japanese and Germans discovered, of five to 10 years. If that lesson is not learned, this country's investment potential will be precious little.
The Government must learn of the effects on industry whenever the pound falls gently or floats gently. In 1980, when the pound was valued at $2·40, manufacturing industry in the west midlands was collapsing about our ears. Britain was unable to export, but when the pound fell against the dollar to $1·50 or $1·20, our export trade began to prosper. The same applies today. As the pound falls, our exports begin to prosper.
The unions learned their lesson, but capitalism has yet to learn—as have the Government—that it is wrong to imagine that a strong pound helps to fight inflation. It does not. Nor do high interest rates help industry. Whenever I hear Ministers or ex-Ministers—among them, former Chancellors of the Exchequer, happily—claiming that high interest rates and a high pound help to kill inflation, I cannot follow their logic. The Government's present policy is much sounder.
Industry in the west midlands wants not so much a stable pound as a pound that is at a lower level against the dollar and lower interest rates. Exports and our general prosperity will then climb.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: This is the time of year to send Christmas cards of good news, and the debate provides an opportunity to send greetings to every citizen in the west midlands. At the same time, it is necessary to recall ghosts of Christmas past. I am reminded of the necessity to do so by the report of the Confederation of British Industry's west midlands region and Coopers and Lybrand, which notes changes in the region, the recession between 1978 and 1983, and the period of regeneration from 1985 to 1989.
My hon. Friends and I remember the dark times of the 1960s, when no industrial development certificates existed, when there was no new building, and when grants were being given everywhere except in the west midlands. That continued for decade after decade, until the dictum of

weakening the weak became the dictum of weakening the strong. Birmingham and the west midlands generally were reduced in all their trappings. About 250,000 jobs were lost, and the regional unemployment rate was 30 per cent. above the national average. There were about 14,000 acres of derelict land, rents were falling, and incomes fell by about 8 per cent. Those were the years of decline, and they are the spectres of Christmas past.
Since then employment has picked up to an extraordinary extent. For the 40th month, running the unemployment rate has fallen, and although there has regrettably been a reduction in industrial employment, there has been major growth in all the service industries, especially tourism. That has helped to regenerate the west midlands still further. There has been an increase of at least 25 per cent. in the redevelopment of derelict land, and rents have risen for all classes of property—industrial, office and commercial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) mentioned the excellent developments in training, and at a time when we are sending Christmas cards it is no bad thing to remind ourselves of the recent improvements in the employment rate. In November, unemployment in the west midlands had fallen to 5·8 per cent.; in Coventry and Hinckley, it was 6·1 per cent.; in my city of Birmingham, it was 7·2 per cent.; in Dudley and Sandwell, it was 6·8 per cent.; in Walsall, it was 6·3 per cent.; and in Wolverhampton, it was 8·7 per cent. Throughout the area, it had reached an almighty low. In my constituency, which has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Birmingham, there was a reduction of 28 per cent. in one year, up to last July, and a reduction of 42 per cent. in two years.
Where else has that good news been repeated? The figures for claimants of unemployment benefit in the west midlands have improved tremendously. In my constituency they fell by 54 per cent. in the three years from November 1986 to November 1989, in the west midlands county they are down by 51 per cent. and in the region they are down by 56 per cent. They are 51 per cent. down in Great Britain as a whole. That is another indication of the massive improvement in the quality of life for our citizens.
All this is attributable to the regeneration that has taken place right across the spectrum, to the efforts of the people of the west midlands and to the fact that investment in the area has ben helped by the regional grant that is now sometimes received. I understand that 22 per cent. of the grant for the whole of England flows back in the lifeblood of industrial investment in the west midlands, and 12 per cent. of that of the United Kingdom as a whole. That investment is evidencing itself in many ways.
Earlier this week, I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money had come into Birmingham recently. I was told that the second largest grant in the city, amounting to £6·2 million, had been provided for the Waterlinks project, which had received £10 million. We heard excellent news from the Secretary of State for Transport, who had met our requests for investment in the Heartland spine road, which will redevelop more than 2,000 acres in the area. When I said that I hope that that would be capped by approval for the electrification of the cross-city line—which I initiated when I was chairman of transport in the area—we got a nod and a wink that that would soon happen.
We see investment everywhere—in the transport support grant for the new heartland scheme, the Lichfield road, the middle ring road, the north-south road, the


Dudley southern road, which will cost £46 million in total, for roads in Shirley and for the A44 to A422 link. There has been a massive cash injection into local road infrastructure. The amount that we had budgeted for— some £5 billion—will become £12 billion during the next four years.
All the arteries and highways serving the west midlands will be redeveloped and widened and will have carriageways added. The M6, M54 and the M5 are all needed to speed goods from the factory. Extra productivity has resulted. For example, in the car industry export production has increased by 32 per cent. over last year, and commercial vehicle export production has increased by 22 per cent. There was total extra production of 8·5 per cent. on cars last year and 11 per cent. for commercial vehicles. No wonder we defend the car industry in the west midlands and Birmingham, and no wonder they were successful in their representation that they should remain British.
It is wrong for anyone to accuse a former Secretary of State of not having done precisely what Conservative Members and my Opposition Colleagues asked them to do. They kept Land Rover British. That marvellous situation was achieved at a small cost, and now those industries are thriving, as are the aeronautical and car components industries.
Orders are coming in for every conceivable product. Last week a £150 million order for extra rolling stock for new trains to be used in the Channel tunnel was ratified for Metro Cammell.
Next year, I trust that we shall have the pleasure of passing the second part of the Bill to introduce light electric railways. The first part of the Bill, costing £60 million, has already been passed by the House. That will link Wolverhampton with Birmingham via West Bromwich. The next portion of the Bill, costing £240 million, will join up the areas between the national exhibition centre and Fiveways via the Heartland and a third line will join Wolverhampton and Dudley. The scheme will provide the west midlands, which has suffered at least £420 million in losses as a result of traffic congestion this year alone, with an alternative cheap, cost-effective, environmentally acceptable form of extra transport that will supplement rail and bus services.
When the Bill is passed, the west midlands will have one of the most modern systems of transport in the world, and that is just one of the massive new capital injections made in the area.
The issues that could bring us down, and that could render a Christmas card less acceptable, are interest rates that are too high for too long and Germany's ability to use an extra 1 million skilled workers at cheap rates from the east in its aided economy. That economy was developed by the Americans from nothing, with great goodwill and benevolence. New factories were developed out of the rubble and they were given a new trade union structure. I believe that there are only 14 trade unions in Germany.
Another problem would be a massive intrusion of an immigration force that would drain the west midlands of its natural resources in housing, benefits, and health care, for example. Another difficulty is that young labour is moving away. It is estimated that a frightening 23 per cent. of 16 to 19-year-olds will move away between 1989 and 1995. We must prove by all this investment and

confidence, by having rectified the years of neglect and by the years of achievement, that ours is a vital area for the young to live in.
If I could write just one message on my Christmas card, it would be that we are living in an area which will be one of the most dynamic, excellent, residentially desirable and most strategically salient in Europe.

Mr. Bruce George: I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) on his success in the ballot and on giving us this opportunity. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) centred his speech around a Christmas card. I remind him that Christmas cards are based largely on myth, tradition and fantasy. I listened with respect to the hon. Gentleman, but some of what I heard fits that description.
I share the hon. Gentleman's vision. I, too, want to create a dynamic economy and to build out of the crisis and deprivation—"rubble" is too strong a word—an economy of which we can be proud. I want to make the west midlands again the powerhouse of the British economy.
It would be wrong to speak in propagandist terms. Although I want a healthy, vibrant private sector, I believe that the regeneration of our area depends also on a healthy public sector. The past decade has not been one of undiluted success which we can willingly laud and trumpet. Much of the infrastructure of our region has been destroyed, and there has been what often amounts to a malevolent attack on local government.
I am not an uncritical analyst of local government—far from it—but I believe that much of what it has done has been useful. I include in that the West Midlands county council, which, ironically, Labour opposed when the Conservatives wanted to set it up, although the roles were reversed in the end.
I believe that the West Midlands county council performed a useful role as a catalyst for economic regeneration. It provided many public services and Fulfilled a co-ordinating function. At its demise—"destruction" would be more appropriate—a vacuum was left which has not been filled.
I want to recreate in our region not public sector hostility to the private sector and the private sector hostility to the public sector, or Government hostility to the public sector, but partnership.
I have long abandoned the view held by many of my hon. Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] There are not many more on the Conservative Benches—that the major conflict is between British capital and British labour. The conflict is British industry against everyone else abroad and we need consensus, harmony and working together. The Government have got the balance wrong. The public sector is pre-eminent in providing the infrastructure, and the infrastructure in our region is collapsing.
I am not saying that a multitude of public sector companies exclusively should be created in the region. I hope that, when Labour is returned to office, we do not indulge in the same hostility against the private sector that the public sector has faced in the past decade. Our goals may be the same, but the way in which we seek to achieve


them clearly differs. I should like the public sector and local government to have an increased role in the regeneration of our industries.
Much of the industrial health of our region was based on the motor vehicle industry, which has declined in recent years. Mention has been made of a recent report, but reports produced in the 1960s revealed the beginning of a crisis that was not properly recognised by Government or industry. The chickens came home to roost with a vengeance. The difficulties in the 1970s were followed by a critical period when unemployment in my constituency increased from below 5 per cent. to approaching 20 per cent.
The hon. Member for Yardley spoke about the continuous fall in unemployment in recent years. However, despite that reduction, unemployment in my constituency and in many others in the west midlands is still higher than it was when the Conservative Government took office. I do not belong to the group of people who, whenever the unemployment figures are published, make carping criticism and complain that unemployment is too high. Although unemployment is falling, the tragedy of our region is that the apparent improvement in the unemployment statistics is due partly to the fact that new industries have been developed, but many of the new jobs that have been created are part-time and low-paid.
The hon. Member for Yardley stressed the importance of the service sector, but we must have a strong manufacturing base. The many reports of the Low Pay Unit reveal a rather different picture from that described by the hon. Gentleman.
Mention has been made of the role of the Black Country development corporation in industrial regeneration. 1 was not happy that the development corporation was established, because, as a supporter of local government, I firmly believe that, had proper resources and powers been given to the local authorities, they could have provided much of the regeneration of the region.
I still do not like the lack of accountability of the development corporation. I welcome its resources, but I am irritated by the fact that the Black Country development corporation is endorsing and supporting shopping developments in Sandwell that I fear will have an adverse effect on shops in other parts of the region. Although I welcome the construction of new roads, it is ironic that, as a Labour Member, I should be approached by business men in my constituency who are most anxious that the Black Country development corporation gives them proper compensation for the virtual liquidation of their companies as a result of road construction.
Two years ago—I hope that the Minister will consider this—I attended a public meeting at which the spine route was discussed. The local authority decided that the brunt of road construction would not be borne by residents—many people would have been adversely affected by the construction of the road from Wednesbury to Moxley—but that industrialists would fall on their swords for the collective good. At least 20 factories in my constituency were in the line of route of the spine road, which is important for the regeneration of the area—I make no criticism of the concept of the road.
What the owners of those factories told me caused me some anxiety, and it should cause Conservative Members

even more anxiety. Those small companies have been offered compensation for their elimination from the site, but it is insufficient for them to purchase comparable facilities nearby. The managing directors of the companies were worried, because one of the alternatives facing them was to take the inadequate amount of money and retire.
It may have been impolite to raise this matter in the House before doing so with the BCDC, but I hope that it will consider carefully the way in which it provides compensation for companies adversely affected by development. I hope that it will provide something of benefit not only to those who will use the road but to the companies and to those in employment who might suffer.
We heard much about the importance of transport. Our region is largely based on, and has had almost an obsession with, the motor vehicle. I welcome what the hon. Member for Yardley said. He has done much for the midland metro, which is an example of the public and private sectors working together. He lauded the private sector, yet much of his speech was devoted to one of the great achievements of public investment. The West Midlands passenger transport authority has decided to look not a year or two years ahead, as politicians normally do, but a decade ahead. It has recognised that we must transfer passengers from the roads to the railways. I endorse the concept and operation of the metro, although a number of my constituents will be adversely affected because their gardens will be removed.
We wish to see not only the metro but a good rail network established. In my area—this is almost unprecedented—a small rail line has been opened, but some of British Rail's rolling stock is pretty ancient. We do not need a re-run of the debates that we have had over the past few days. The railway industry should receive not less but more subsidy. Anyone reading the statistics would conclude that the amount of investment per head in our rail network is deplorably low vis-à-vis our industrial competitors. A good rail network is critical to the speed with which goods are transferred within the manufacturing process. As someone who regularly uses the M1 and M6, I say, please improve the motorways, but the infrastructure of the west midlands must be based partly on a good rail network.
We have heard about the importance of education. One of the Government's trumpeted aims is to establish city technology colleges. While I believe that the Black Country development corporation is largely doing a reasonably good job, when we consider the major educational authorities to which we might defer, we would not instinctively put the BCDC high on the list. It has a great deal to do to regenerate industry in the west midlands. However, it should not assume a serious role in education.
In my town, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), a city technology college is soon to be established and the Minister is very enthusiastic about it. However, the Walsall council education committee was not consulted in the process of establishing a large college or school in the area. At the moment, the authority has the difficult task of trying to match the number of comprehensive schools with a declining number of pupils. There are varying estimates of how many comprehensives will have to close. One will certainly close, and a few months ago the suggestion was that three might have to close because there are simply not enough pupils to fill them.
At a time when schools are being closed, it appears to be perverse logic to build a CTC with Government endorsement. I cannot accept that the kind of education that will be provided in the CTC could not be provided in a comprehensive so long as it had the proper resources. The establishment of the CTC is another manifestation of political ideology being elevated to such a point that it has a distorting effect.
I want to see a well-paid, efficient region which contributes to the regional and national economies. This country is a member of the European Community and much has been provided by way of infrastructure funds to the region, and in particular to Birmingham. We are engaged in a co-operative venture to create a new economy for the region.
I hope that all Conservative Members will agree that there must be a co-operative venture between the public and the private sectors. If we can get the balance right, we will have a more soundly based regeneration. At the

moment, business men in the region are sad about the interest rates which are making high investment difficult, and that investment is the goal which in the long term will create secure jobs.
I welcome this debate and hope that, in some small way, it will contribute to an understanding of what is happening in the region. I hope that the Government, in the final part of their over-long period of office, will have another deathbed repentance—of that in the House at the moment—and recognise that the public sector should not simply be the whipping boy or be eliminated or emasculated.
I hope that the Government accept that we should have a healthy system of local government in which the Government have confidence, provide it with proper resources and allow it to build council houses to help create a powerful and effective building industry—an industry which is ailing at the moment. Hopefully, we will then see the regeneration of our region, which, despite what has been said, we still await.

Mr. Roger King: In his succinct opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) placed great emphasis on the ability of the west midlands to maintain the momentum of economic growth that it has achieved over the past few years as a result of dramatic changes in the structural make-up of the region. Old industries which in many cases have been in the region for several hundred years have fallen by the wayside and new opportunities have sprung up. Some of those new opportunities have involved higher technology, and much of our industry has had to embrace new working schemes in the new technology. Much of it has been done successfully.
I cannot start my contribution in any better way than to emphasise that the one momentum that we must keep going in our region is transport. It is apposite that we are having this debate just a day after the opening of the first section of the northern link of the M40 motorway—11 valuable miles which will eventually comprise a second motorway link between Birmingham, the west midlands—the heartland of the country—and London. That section is many years overdue. When one considers this matter in the context of a completed motorway programme around the west midlands conurbation and the existing motorway system, one can begin to see the infrastructure for which we have long asked and which we must have to survive in an increasingly competitive European, let alone world, environment. We have certainly made some great progress.
I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's promised existing motorway stock, including the widening of the M6 and parts of the M54, although I am not yet aware when the work will start. We certainly look forward to a dramatic improvement in the M6 north of the west midlands conurbation towards Manchester and the north-west—something that is now of vital importance. It is one of the most heavily congested roads in the world. We must face the challenge of accommodating the traffic growth that is now occurring.
The west midlands is a wide area. It covers not only Birmingham, the black country and Coventry, but a significant section of middle heartland countryside such as Shropshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire. It comprises a wide, disparate area with many commercial and industrial disciplines. The birthplace of industry is in Shropshire, in Telford new town, which has enjoyed phenomenal expansion over the past 10 or 15 years. One need only visit the area to realise the tremendous achievements of the past decade or so. Many hundreds of new businesses have come from all over the world. It is a successful area for development, and the improvement in prosperity in the area is dramatic.
Much of our base industry circulates round the motor industry. That encapsulates the history of the west midlands industrial region. The rise—not so much the fall—and regeneration of the motor industry has been well catalogued by many writers and politicians. This is not the time and place to deal with its chronological history. However, the industry is still of major significance to our industrial capabilities. That is particularly so as the motor industry has gone through huge worldwide convulsions. We have seen the arrival of the Japanese in our country, starting as partners in joint production facilities such as we enjoy at the Rover plant at Longbridge in my

constituency. Those activities have been most successful, and have proved a lifeline for the Honda company. We are seeing it expanding production again as a result of co-operating in developing necessary new models in a competitive marketplace.
Of course, we have also heard the announcement that Toyota is going to an area which, is not, strictly speaking the west midlands, but it is just across the border. It has had a major impact on the west midlands, in that the vast concentration of component industries in the west midlands conurbation will take up the challenge and supply components not just to the Rover, Honda and Toyota factories but to Nissan, as many are already doing. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to note that there are warnings that the European Commission is planning to jeopardise that.
As we all know, many member states have made voluntary agreements with Japan about the level of imports from Japan. It is significant that some countries—for example, France and Italy—have steadfastly refused to allow much of their markets to be penetrated by Japanese production. Of course, this will change as a result of the open market in 1992, because the European Community will have to have a policy towards Japan. The European Community's present scheme is called voluntary restraint agreements, whereby the total level of Japanese production or sales into the European Community will be no more than 12 per cent., rising to 16 per cent. At the moment it seems that that 12 to 16 per cent., which will grow over a number of years, takes into account Japanese production in satellite plants in Europe, which means Britain. That will be a severe setback for our motor and components industry.
If artificial restraints are placed on Japanese badge cars that are sourced and made in this counry, it will be a black day for our car production. We need to be ever-vigilant to ensure that the European Commission does not pull a fast one on British industry now that we have got our car industry act together and can look forward to closing our present balance of payments gap. Although I look forward to its being closed over the latter part of the next decade, the fulfilment of that hope could be put in jeopardy unless we get the right voluntary restraint agreements which discount Japanese production from transplanted factories that have been set up in this country, or anywhere else in Europe. If we do not resolve the problem, much of the progress that we have enjoyed in the past few years in the motor industry, which is the powerhouse of our region, could be jeopardised.
One problem in the west midlands, although it is not confined to our area, is that of investment. It is essential that our industry invests in the new products and equipment that are necessary to taking up the challenge of 1992 and fighting off competition from wherever it comes. It seems that much of the current investment is confined to big manufacturers. About 22 per cent. of all English payments of regional assistance are made to businesses in the west midlands conurbation. That is extremely encouraging, but it is unfortunate that they are almost entirely restricted to large businesses.
Medium-sized and smaller businesses are not getting that assistance because they cannot raise the necessary money themselves to add to the amount of regional assistance for which they would qualify. They cannot raise that money because interest rates are higher than they would like. We have an opportunity to ensure that such


businesses invest, but the opportunity is running out. If we do not encourage them to make those investments and to take up the opportunities, we could be caught short in 1992.
I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but now is the time to make our Budget proposals and to put forward our ideas. One way of targeting assistance to small businesses would be to introduce a small business interest rebate scheme. Businesses that invest could attract an interest rebate after their financial year end. If it was for no more than 5 per cent., the rebate would not cost the Exchequer a great deal, but it would be enough to encourage small businesses to make those vital investments.
The image of our area is not very good. About 65 per cent. of companies that have been polled reckon that the image of the west midlands is poor in a variety of respects. We must put that right. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) made some relevant remarks about the role of the old county council. It is true that it did some good work, and certainly the assets that it collected for itself in its 12 or 13 years of existence were huge. The residuary body is constantly handing out cheques to many authorities as it liquidates those assets. However, the county council played an important role as a co-ordinating body for the disparate schemes that were available throughout the west midlands county. The trouble was that it required a whole body of councillors to be elected and a bureaucracy to be set up. There are many schemes in the west midlands and many opportunities with training courses, investment schemes, urban development corporations and Birmingham Heartlands, which are all helping our area. We also have an inner-cities policy.
However, what we really need is someone to co-ordinate these things. I do not believe that we need a separate body or council. We do not need to go to all the trouble of elections, because if the Government would allow it, our Members of Parliament from both parties could set up some regional body of Members of Parliament to act as the guiding body. Perhaps one of my Conservative colleagues could become a regional co-ordinator, or even the governor, of the west midlands. It is only a suggestion. We need someone to take the lead and to present the image of our area constructively. He could co-ordinate all the many agencies and target assistance where it is required. We would welcome that.
It is a question of image. We have a certain momentum and we want to keep it going. I am sure that, given the opportunities, industry in the west midlands will rise to the occasion and our prosperity will continue.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has made a typically robust and helpful speech, as he did once before. On 25 June 1983, he introduced a similar debate on the economy of the west midlands to that which my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) has introduced today.
I made my maiden speech in the 1983 debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House contributed to that debate, but the circumstances of the west midlands then, were very different from those which prevail today. That debate was characterised by accusations from the

Opposition that the industrial outlook in the west midlands had never been so bleak. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said:
I hope that neither the Minister nor Government Back Benchers will claim that they can now see light at the end of this dismal tunnel. There is no real prospect of that—only of worse."—[Official Report, 25 June 1983; Vol. 46, c. 892]
The hon. Gentleman, unfortunately, is not in his place tonight, but I hope that he would be the first to accept that he was wrong. My hon. Friends have tonight shown him to be wrong. Even the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who takes a rather more pessimistic view than my hon. Friends and I do, would agree that the evidence overwhelmingly shows that there has been change.
That change is reflected in the unemployment figures. In the west midlands in 1983 unemployment stood at 15 per cent.—in November 1989 it was 5·8 per cent.

Mr. George: What was it in 1979?

Mr. Howarth: It would have been lower than 15 per cent. in 1979, but it would not have been lower than 5·8 per cent. In the Walsall travel-to-work area, which affects both my constituency and that of the hon. Gentleman, the unemployment figure has fallen from 17·5 per cent. to 6·3 per cent.
Those figures show the change. The economic foundations laid in the early 1980s have paid off with dividends. There is no longer any land in my constituency available for development. It has all been taken. New industries are locating to the west midlands. Recently, a garden furniture manufacturing company moved its production facilities from Jutland, a high-cost area in Denmark, to the west midlands because that is the best place to locate. Indeed, it has moved to Cannock in my constituency.
In the debate in 1983, I said that people had to be lean and hungry. I referred to a company which had no receptionist, merely a telephone in the entrance foyer with a sign saying, "Pick up the telephone and ring '0' for inquiries." Today that company, Albion Pressed Metal, at the gateway to Cannock, employs more people than ever in the automotive industry. It is proving highly successful and won a major training award this year.
I will take up the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, South about the private sector. The railway line to which he referred runs into my constituency, and I pay tribute to Staffordshire county council for bringing forward that railway project. It has not done much for the shops in Hednesford, however, because people now want to shop in Walsall rather than locally and the train helps them to do so.
Although there are no pits in my constituency, many miners live there. Despite the dramatic cut in employment in the coal industry, both Littleton and Lea Hall collieries have thrived, producing record outputs week after week. I pay tribute to the miners for what they have done.
Another subject of my maiden speech was the Cannock community hospital, for which people of all parties campaigned for more than 50 years. This wicked Tory Government who do not care about health care are providing the £18 million to build the Cannock community hospital which, it is hoped, will open in 1991.
Unquestionably, we face some difficulties. I salute my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his


recognition of the role of interest rates and the fact that there is work to be done to ensure that British manufacturing industry, about which we all care, is able to compete internationally. If there is one message that I wish to convey to the House tonight, it is that it is vital that we in the west midlands do not talk ourselves into a recession. In my discussions with manufacturing and other industries, few people tell me that they are not doing well, but they are worried about future business confidence. We owe it to them not to talk down the prospects for British manufacturing industry.
I conclude on a personal note. In the past 36 hours, I have shared with my colleagues in the west midlands the tragedy of the loss of one of our colleagues there, the former Member for Mid-Staffordshire, John Heddle. I hope that you will not think it amiss, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if, as the hon. Member who now represents part of the constituency that my hon. Friend so ably represented from 1979 to 1983—Burntwood—I pay a small tribute to my late hon. Friend. He was a most dedicated, enthusiastic and kind Member of Parliament who will be remembered with affection and gratitude not only by his own constituents but by those of my constituents whom he represented so ably between 1979 and 1983.

Mr. Richard Caborn: As only a short time remains to debate this matter, I shall curtail my remarks. I thank the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) for initiating the debate. His speech was constructive but I detected in it, as in the speeches of other Conservative Members, a little anxiety about the future. He referred in passing to possible structural weaknesses in some of the developments in the west midlands.
When I was given the job of responding to the debate, I looked up some of the economic and industrial indicators for the west midlands. I was surprised at the depth of the recession between 1979 and 1983. The area suffered probably one of the greatest declines in employment of any region and experienced a near collapse of its manufacturing base. A massive 21 per cent. of companies were lost in that period. In that four-year period, more than 250,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing industry. That was a massive and unmanageable loss, which created many problems.
The turnround of the past three years has been referred to this evening. One must ask whether it was due to development of the infrastructure and sustained growth or was in response to a boom. That question gives rise to some concern. The manufacturing statistics show that the upturn experienced from 1986 to 1989 does not bring the sector back to the level of 1978; there is still a long way to go. One must accept that the services industry has mitigated the rate of unemployment. There has been a rise in activity in that industry.
Much has been said about investment. It is true that the west midlands has benefited from 20 per cent. of recent inward investment in the United Kingdom—investment in the region has increased by a factor of four. In the main, however, the investment stems from buy-ins, which means that it is equivalent to zero investment. Although I do not want to diminish the importance of inward investment, one must decide whether it is new investment or a buy-in

and therefore a zero gain. It is also interesting to note that the west midlands is lagging behind the rest of the country in terms of its contribution to the growth in GDP experienced since 1981. GDP per head in the west midlands remains 10 per cent. adrift from the rest of the country. In 1987–88, the rate of investment in the west midlands was 10 per cent. below the United Kingdom average.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton referred to training, but since 1979 the number of apprenticeships in the west midlands has fallen by 70 per cent. Of all the figures quoted, that one has the most serious implications for the region. The hon. Gentleman referred to turners and millers, but if we do not train them they will not be available.
It is worth assessing how the west midlands will fare in 1992. We usually compare the region with Yorkshire or the south-east, but it is important to compare it with the European regions. I have studied the GDP per capita of the länder of West Germany. Our best region in terms of GDP per capita and productivity growth does not even match the worst of the länder. The other interesting factor is the way in which economic development and the subsequent benefits have been distributed in West Germany. In the United Kingdom the south-east is over-heating while the northern regions are under-utilised. The tax regime at the federal and länder level acts as an equaliser. Therefore, the economic benefits are distributed across Germany and the country takes considerable advantage of them. A study of the economic indicators for West Germany and France show that the west midlands is at a major productive disadvantage.
The Henley forecasting centre has made a study of the expected growth of the west midlands from 1988 to 1995. From the data fed in it appears that the region will grow at a rate of 2·6 per cent. of GDP per annum up to 1995. That means that it will lag behind France and West Germany, which will become our major competitors.
I agree that we should not talk down the west midlands or any other region, but we must be realistic about what things will be like post 1992. Most people are reaching the conclusion that we have a major structural weakness. That weakness is apparent from the role of venture capital, and the attitude of the financial institutions to the manufacturing base. Research and development is under-funded and unco-ordinated, although I accept that the science parks, to which reference has been made, are a positive development. Our transport infrastructure is also weak.
The greatest weakness, however, is the tendency to pump ever more resources into the south-east. We heard recent evidence of that from the Government. We are to spend billions to try to relieve the congestion in the south-east. The Government should heed the suggestions of their hon. Friends tonight and should follow an interventionist policy to attract development away from the south-east to the midlands and to Yorkshire. We should look at the major structures, particularly the infrastructures, where that development can take place.
It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says in his reply because, apart from one, all the speeches, from both sides of the House, have been critical—sometimes constructive—of the Government's policy towards development in the regions. That is true for not merely the west midlands, but for most of the midlands and the north. An overhaul of the policies for the regeneration in the


regions is needed. The Audit Commission's report which was published in the middle of this year said that the patchwork quilt of grants was totally unco-ordinated and now so complex that even businesses could not understand what they were being offered.
The Government are in a hell of a fix. Unless something is done about these weaknesses in the near future, 1992 will expose them even more.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): The time left to me is short only because of the enthusiasm of hon. Members to participate in the debate, for which I am grateful. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) for initiating the debate. I fully associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friends about the sad loss of our former hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire, Mr. John Heddle. He will be greatly missed in the House and in debates such as this. This is an appropriate time for us all to remember him, which we do.
I shall attempt, but inevitably fail, to deal with even a small number of the points made by all those who have participated in the debate. A theme ran through the speeches of Conservative Members. They recognised not only the great difficulties which occurred in the west midlands in the early 1980s—those of us who lived through them remember them well and will probably never forget them—but, equally, what has been done by people in the west midlands to regenerate the area, pick themselves up and get on to a completely new footing. It is important for us all to recognise that.
It was a little uncharitable of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) to talk, as he often does—I have listened to him for many years with varying degrees of pleasure and often desperation—about grants, redirections and interventions such as we had in the bad old days. What both the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central and the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said was a sad reflection of the fact that, when looking back to 1979, they could talk about employment levels, but not productivity or profitability levels and the ability that west midlands' industry now shows in competing with the rest of the world. We all know that it could not do that in 1979. That was substantially the reason why we went through what we did in the 1980s.
I do not want to fall out, on this of all occasions, with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), but I must reflect for a moment on an observation that he made. He made a number of interesting observations and a teasing reference to the fact that capitalism must move. I look forward to a new philosophy of capitalism—I do not know whether it will be known as Darkism—and I hope that my hon. Friend will elaborate on his thoughts on some future occasion.
My hon. Friend said that the fall in the sterling exchange rate parity had been an important factor in the improvement of our export performance. That is stating the obvious, and there is nothing wrong with that, but it leaves one reflecting on how the Japanese and the Germans have managed to export spectacularly successfully over the strengthening exchange rate parity of the yen and deutschmark. That suggests that the answer is not

necessarily exchange rates, important though they may he. It is more fundamental. It may lie in productivity differences, for instance.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central was keen to draw parallels with the Federal Republic of Germany, but it is significant that that country's labour force has been prepared year in and year out to accept pay increases related to productivity and performance. One of the key differences over the years between this country and Germany is the fact that even now we are claiming and often awarding ourselves pay increases averaging 9 or 9·5 per cent. which none of us could remotely imagine were related to economic performance or productivity.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I very much hope that we are approaching Darkism, which will mean a new age of light. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the other great differences is that manufacturing industry in the midlands pays 18 per cent. for money, while industry in Japan pays 5 per cent. and industry in Germany 7 per cent.? If we had that advantage, we should really move forward.

Mr. Forth: I accept what my hon. Friend has said, but there is a danger of becoming involved in a chicken-and-egg argument. My hon. Frend understands better than most the relationship between the level of interest rates in a country and its international competitive position, which in turn is related to the other factors that I have mentioned. I well recognise the strength of feeling expressed in the debate and the problems caused by high interest rates, although the latest figures suggest that investment in the west midlands and throughout the country is holding up extremely well. That is encouraging.
I cannot deal in as much detail as I should like with the comments made by the hon. Member for Walsall, South. The best that I can say is that I shall endeavour to pursue his point about compensation to his local businesses. That is a classic example of the difficulties inherent in seeking to create what he described as a much-needed local improvement of infrastructure. I should appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman would let me have the details, and I undertake to have the matter looked into.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned in passing that he wanted subsidies for rail. Where will the money come from? It is all too easy to ask for subsidies, but the Government have tried to keep down tax burdens, both corporate and individual. We have enjoyed much success in doing that, but it inevitably means that we cannot pay the sort of subsidies that we would like.
That brings me in one leap to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) who, as ever, was upbeat and optimistic, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) who, typically, told us how things were looking up. He gave many examples of the great strengths of the region. Those who, like me, have the privilege of representing a constituency in the west midlands want to ensure that the world knows that the region continues on the up and up and that business is attracted to the area. We do not always need bribes and subsidies to bring it in, either—the region is a good place to be and in the end that is the best and only good reason for investing there on a permanent basis.
I slightly regretted that my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield departed from his usual robust attitude when discussing a small business interest rebate scheme. I hope


that my hon. Friend will reflect on it and return later with details, such as how small the business would have to be, at what point the scheme would be triggered, whether there would be limitations on it, where the money for it would come from, what the rules for it would be, and so on. I must tell my hon. Friend, with as much generosity and friendship as I can muster at this time of night, that such a scheme—[Interruption.]—which is getting Opposition Members so excited is easier to suggest than to implement. I look forward, perhaps in the privacy of another part of the building, to hearing how my hon. Friend envisages the scheme working in detail.
Time has run out, but the debate has been useful and productive, not least for those right hon. and hon. Members who take a pride in the west midlands, what it does, and what it stands for. The region has weathered great difficulties and made enormous adjustments, and it has shown itself capable of making the adjustments so necessary for the future, with the imminent arrival of the single European market. We can take pride in the fact that our region stands tall and aims to succeed with the minimum of help and intervention because it knows what it wants to do and will continue to be very good at doing it. In that spirit, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton for allowing the House to debate the west midlands.

Fishing Industry

Mr. James Wallace: I chose the broader subject of the United Kingdom fishing industry for debate rather than concentrate on particular crisis areas, because I hoped that that would allow right hon. and hon. Members from other parts of the country to reflect the concerns and wide geographical interest that were evident not only in last week's debate on the fishing industry but when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made his statement earlier today, responses to which were made by right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies in Cornwall, Northern Ireland, the south of England, north-west Scotland and the east coast, as well as by myself.
I thought that it would be useful, following the meeting of the European Council of Fisheries Ministers, to have a debate in addition to a statement so that the House can discuss critical issues that were the subject of negotiations at the Council. I hoped that such a debate would allow right hon. and hon. Members to flush out the Government's proposals for the industry's future.
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), for attending this debate. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that it could have taken place in the middle of the night and that the Minister might have already spent the two previous nights negotiating. I understand that he managed a reasonable amount of sleep last night, but spent all Monday night at the negotiating table.
It will not be surprising if the debate focuses on the outcome of the Council's meeting and on the other matters that the Minister mentioned in his statement this afternoon. When the House debated fishing last Thursday, there was broad agreement that Ministers should go to Brussels with the object of negotiating the maximum total allowable catches consistent with the scientific advice that the European Commission had received.
We knew that that would not be an easy task, because, for some reason still unexplained, the Commission, in its bilateral negotiations with Norway, initialled an agreement that set TACs for haddock and cod in particular at levels below those recommended by scientists.
Many right hon. and hon. Members, and particularly those representing fishing constituencies, know that, while it is difficult to persuade fishermen to observe TACs based on scientific recommendations, it is almost impossible to persuade them to observe TACs founded on some unexplained negotiating position adopted by the Fisheries Commissioner, Mr. Marin.
Fishermen will inevitably question the basis on which many scientific recommendations are made, and it is important not always to accept such advice as holy writ. Nevertheless, there is overriding concern to comply with such advice. There is genuine concern that haddock stocks in the North sea are reaching a critically low level, and the people working in the industry recognise more than anyone else that its future depends on taking a responsible attitude to conservation today.
I believe that the team representing the United Kingdom's interests achieved what was, in the circumstances, the best possible deal on TACs. As I said in response to this afternoon's statement, I feel that credit should be


paid where it is due. The Minister, however, would be one of the first to recognise that the deal, although it was the best possible, was not a good one. The TAC for North sea cod, haddock and whiting in 1990 will be 110,000 tonnes, compared with 155,000 in 1989. That is a substantial cut, especially in view of the drastic reduction in the 1989 TAC from that of 1988.
I do not want to be accused of carping, as another hon. Member was this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food—I do not know whether the pun was intended—but, as Mr. Speaker invited us to leave the detailed questions until this evening, I should like to deal with some now. I understand that, following the Ministers' success in invoking the Hague preference, the United Kingdom allocation of the North sea haddock TAC of 50,000 tonnes will be 36,300 tonnes. Prior to the negotiations, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation had estimated that, if the Hague preference was successfully invoked, the United Kingdom share would amount to some 38,800 tonnes. Can the Minister explain the apparent shortfall of 2,500 tonnes? Hon. Members may say, "What is 2,500 tonnes?", but with our TACs as low as they are it becomes a significant amount.
Can the Minister tell us whether the 50,000-tonne TAC includes an allocation to Norway of a 3,000-tonne by-catch? If it does, can he explain why that is much the same as the 1989 figure? As a proportion of the total allowable catch, the by-catch figure was much lower in the current year. Why, when the TAC has been so drastically cut back, has the haddock by-catch not been similarly cut?
Perhaps the Minister can also tell us why, although there was a reduction in the industrial by-catch of whiting amounting to some 20,000 tonnes, the whiting by-catch—which I understand to be 50,000 tonnes—is so much higher than the 20,000-tonne allowance for the current calendar year. I think that all hon. Members would agree that most fishermen fish for produce that will end up on the consumer's table, not for industrial purposes, and it is a source of mystery to many that the by-catch has shot up so much.
As for pelagic species, I welcome the flexibility that resulted from negotiations on mackerel in north Scottish waters, which will give much-needed help to the industry. That was, I think, one of the toughest parts of the negotiation, and a very satisfactory outcome was achieved—although I understand that again the TAC is lower. The Minister shakes his head: I welcome that reassurance.
This year, after many years of pressing, Lerwick in Shetland was given limited designation as a transhipment port for a certain amount of mackerel in September-October. That amount was used up very quickly, and it will come as no surprise to the Minister or to his Scottish Office counterpart that we shall try for more.
As some of the stocks are caught towards the east, it makes good sense, not only in commercial terms but in safety terms, for boats to go to the nearest port—which in many cases is Lerwick—rather than undertaking the longer and, in adverse weather, more hazardous journey to Ullapool.
The Commission conceded a 29 per cent. share of North sea herring to Norway when, if the current allocation agreement was followed, having regard to the spawning stock biomass, the share should have been only 25 per cent. This seems to have slipped through. I question the apparent generosity to Norway, which does not seem to have been explained. Why do negotiations have to be

concertina-ed into a short time at the end of every year? The Norwegians can always hold a gun to the Commission's head because they know that it has to present proposals to the Council of Ministers in the second or third week in December. This year, some unsatisfactory arrangements were made which I am glad are to be renegotiated. Is it not possible for the negotiations with Norway to start earlier, so that we do not have this crisis period every year?
In his statement this afternoon, the Minister did not say anything about precautionary TACs on the north-west coast of Scotland for monkfish, megrim and plaice. They are based not on any scientific case, but on historical fishing. It is claimed that, for a number of species, not least monkfish, the status quo is unrealistic. The value of monkfish is great, and if the fleet is denied opportunities to fish for haddock or cod in the North sea, it might get some compensation by fishing for monkfish on the west coast. I should be interested to hear what negotiations there were on precautionary TACs. There will be disappointment that no great increase, if any, has been announced.
The sacrifices that are demanded of our fishermen in the next year as a result of these drastic reductions will be for naught if the vast volume of dead cod and haddock, especially juveniles, are thrown back into the sea after the TACs have been fully fished. Discard is a subject which everyone in the industry to whom I have talked recently has mentioned. They are no longer allowed to fish for haddock, but it is inevitable that, if they are fishing for other white fish species, they will catch a large volume of haddock which they are obliged to throw back into the sea, although dead. That seems almost counter-productive to establishing conservation by TACs.
If TACs are to be effective as conservation measures, they must be backed up by others. I welcome the Minister's announcement today that the Commission has committed itself to produce proposals for further technical conservation measures by the middle of next year. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation can claim to have set the ball rolling. It has given a responsible lead with a package of measures which it proposed much earlier in the year. Every opportunity should be taken to build on that co-operative approach. I should be interested to hear what kind of conservation measures were considered at the Brussels meeting.
There should be tougher and simpler enforcement rules to give proper effect to TACs. We must ensure that there is adequate funding of fishery protection vessels. Can any of the measures that have been proposed be introduced by the Government for United Kingdom waters ahead of agreement with our Community partners? It may be that we can make some advances towards more effective conservation, at least in local waters.
All those who know the industry accept, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food repeated today, that conservation measures are tough. They are not easy, but the industry accepts the need for them and has put forward measures only after considerable negotiation. Nevertheless, they have been proposed by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation with support from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation. The Government should build on that spirit of co-operation in the industry.
Another suggestion which was not made by the industry but which may be worth considering is the possibility of identifying areas where spawning grounds or juvenile stocks predominate where it would be possible to


have a closed season during some parts of the year. That would be bound to cause some controversy. Last week, I asked one fisherman whether it was a worthwhile measure, and he said, "If you propose it, all hell will break loose. You will be roundly criticised, but those who criticise you will go home and say, 'That guy is talking sense.'" Proposals to close off fishing grounds are always controversial, but, given the crisis in some North sea stocks, we must consider such possibilities.
Measures to conserve stocks will be defeated if there is too much capacity chasing limited stocks. The only effective solution is to reduce capacity through a decommissioning scheme. I have had no other suggestion which can meet the scale of the present problem. Many people recognise that decommissioning is the only way to achieve a significant reduction.
Clearly there will be a reduction in fishing opportunity. In return for a worthwhile success in getting the Commission to drop the two measures it had proposed for the management of our national fishing quotas, the United Kingdom Government have been asked to submit by the end of January proposals regarding the management of the reduced quotas and methods to reduce the fishing effort. I would welcome from the Minister a timetable of negotiation with the industry and proposals for meeting that requirement from the Commission. Undoubtedly, he will need the co-operation of the industry, but how does he expect to get it, considering that this afternoon's statement slammed the door on the proposal that the industry has supported for so long?
The statement said nothing about a temporary lay-off scheme, although that may have been included in the blanket dismissal of any form of subsidy. In the past, a temporary lay-off scheme has not been considered a particularly suitable or effective way of solving the industry's problems, not least because of the strict rules that have to be met and the relatively small sums of money provided for complying with the requirements. At present, almost anything would be welcome to ease the financial burden that inevitably will fall even harder on the industry. As other countries have managed to top up their decommissioning grants, is it possible for the Government to top up temporary lay-off schemes and make them financially worthwhile to implement and give boats over 18 m long at least some temporary respite?
Last week, the Secretary of State for Scotland poured cold water on the idea of a decommissioning scheme by quoting the criticisms of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. He asked how it would
reduce the amount of fishing effort? In its 1987 report the National Audit Office questioned whether the removal of vessels under the earlier scheme did anything to relieve the difficulties of the fishing quotas that were under pressure. It would be difficult to target a scheme properly, as it is difficult in such circumstances for the Government to intervene effectively and precisely in an industry with so many active participants".—[Official Report, 14 December 1989; Vol. 163, col. 1246.]
This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food again used the excuse of the PAC as a reason why decommissioning might be inappropriate.
In fact, the report of the PAC made it clear that the PAC did not actually reject all decommissioning grants

but, rather, noted that member states in 1986–87 were given options as to how the decommissioning scheme should be introduced. The report said:
MAFF decided to introduce a regulatory approach, with provision for the automatic payment of a flat-rate grant. It is clear that this was exploited by some owners, and grants were paid in several instances at a level which exceeded the unlicensed value of the vessel … We consider that in drawing up the decommissioning scheme, the Agricultural Departments could have made much better use of the flexibility allowed by the relevant European Community directive. As a result, in our view the scheme was grossly expensive for what it achieved.
But in its next conclusion—in the section of its report which I quoted in the debate last Thursday—it said that it saw some future use for decommissioning grants. It made it clear that it was objecting not so much to the principle of decommissioning as to the manner of operation of the decommissioning grant scheme introduced by MAFF in 1986.
One readily appreciates why the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, having been involved as Minister of State at that time, does not want to get his knuckles rapped twice. While such personal feelings may be understandable, they should not stand in the way of easing the process of restructuring so that the industry can cope with the much reduced fishing opportunities that are about to occur.
In an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr.Kirkwood) in November, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), referred to the criticisms of the previous scheme by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, and then made the telling remark
although my view is that those criticisms could be met".—[Official Report, 21 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 112.]
If the Scottish Office believed that the criticisms could be met, one would have hoped that it could have persuaded its counterpart at MAFF that they could be met. It is clear that it failed in that task, so that effectively MAFF vetoed a scheme that the Scottish Office must have thought was viable.
Another criticism of the National Audit Office and the PAC was about the difficulty of targeting those to whom the scheme should apply. How should it be targeted? What discussions have the Departments had with the industry in recent months, when the industry had expressed its willingness to have a decommissioning scheme? Have discussions taken place to see how that could be effectively targeted without leading to some of the more efficient and newer vessels being taken out? Many other EC countries operate decommissioning schemes. Has MAFF considered those examples with a view to seeing how they might be implemented here?
If we are not to have decommissioning—which would seem to be the outcome of today's ministerial statement—what shall be have? How far will the steps announced this afternoon go towards meeting the targets set under the multi-annual guidance programme? No steps appear to have been taken in that direction, and that is regrettable.
We appreciate that MAFF is hooked on a licence aggregation scheme. I have no objection to that, because such a scheme has a part to play in the overall licensing system, but the Minister is kidding himself if he thinks that that will make a significant contribution to reducing the


capacity of the fleet. How does he see the reduction in the fleet size being managed? The fear must be that it will not be managed at all.
Will the Minister expand on what was said in this afternoon's statement to the effect that, with the exception of grant aid for essential safety improvements, vessel grant aid will be restricted to those cases where it is needed to back up European Community grant aid? It is my understanding—I shall willingly accept correction if I am wrong—that European grant aid was given if a project was already in receipt of national aid. I may have misinterpreted what was said, and any elucidation of it will be most welcome. It appears, however, that the cart was being put in front of the horse, and effectively all forms of grant aid were being cut off. I shall welcome correction if that is not the position.
What is being suggested could have serious implications for the boat building industry. That is of considerable concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), as many of her constituents have jobs at the shipbuilding yard at Campbeltown.
Other parts of this afternoon's statement suggest that the industry will be obliged seriously to reduce its fishing activity, yet there has been no suggestion of financial underpinning. When farmers were expected to accept milk quotas or to take the set-aside scheme, some compensation was payable.
We tend to talk generally about the fishing industry, but in many parts of the country, especially Scotland, including my constituency, the "industry" means individual boats and very small businesses. Individual skippers and crews have directly to provide for their families. They are to be subjected to high interest rates and fewer catching opportunities with which to generate an income to meet household expenses and payments on their boats.
The Government seem to be cutting the industry adrift, as it were. Onshore processing workers, workers in the boat building industry, skippers and crews, and fishing communities generally are about to take the full blast of free market forces. If that is the position, it will be a haphazard way of deciding who will be around when, as we hope, stocks are built up again and there are greater catching opportunities.
The way in which the Government seem to be asking the industry to go provides no guarantee for the future security of the industry, let alone its future prosperity. The Government have a responsibility. The licensing scheme which they introduced in the mid-1980s failed. It did not keep a check on the expansion of the industry. They were warned by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and by official Opposition Members, of the likely outcome of the scheme. The Government presided over the building of new boats and helped to fund their construction at a time when fishermen were being told that things were looking good for the fishing of haddock. Only two years have passed since the scientists were recommending an increase in the total allowable catch for haddock.
Ministers cannot run away from their responsibilities. It is important that we take every opportunity to pursue them to ascertain exactly what they are proposing to assist an industry that is facing a crisis. I acknowledge again the efforts that were made at Brussels successfully to negotiate a better TAC than looked possible at one stage, but that was only one part of the package by which we said that Ministers would be judged. On the critical part of the

package—the restructuring of the industry—they have said nothing. It would appear that they are abdicating their responsibilities in that regard.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to be able to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He is to be congratulated on his tenacity in keeping us in our places at this hour of the night to debate the fishing industry. I am sure that the Minister and the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the Opposition spokesman, will agree that it is a trying time for the industry in all its various manifestations.
We are in a hopeless mess: it is difficult not to be pessimistic about what is happening and what will happen over the next 12 months. We must, however, be as positive as we can. I think that my hon. Friend was right when he said—I echo his sentiment—that the ministerial team deserves credit for the advances that it managed to achieve against the terms of the scientific advice. No one should under-estimate, however, the uncertainties and the difficulties that the industry will face.
The catching industry will experience difficulties with the reduction in TACs. The Minister is aware that I am concerned about haddock and cod quotas; fishing against a quota of 36,000 tonnes will be a dire prospect next year. Although the catching industry will experience difficulties, those experienced by the processing industry will often be greater. It will have to cast its sights ahead over the coming years and, like everyone else, put together investment plans for capital machinery. It will experience economic problems such as exchange rates and interest rates, which will put it at a disadvantage compared with its competitors in the European Community.
I do not know what can be done to assist the processing industry—the Government have no proposals. I recognise that the Minister lends a ready ear to problems. Indeed, his ear is chewed every time he visits a quayside in Britain. I do not envy him his task. Quayside markets are not only damp and wet, but it cannot be nice to get one's ear bitten off by people who are genuinely worried about their future livelihoods. But at least he has it in his power to give them some hope of help from the Government. The Government must recognise by now that they need help, if they did not know it previously. The processing industry must be given urgent consideration.
One of the most frequent arguments that the processing industry makes to me—I realise that against scientific advice this may be difficult—is that, if it had a rolling programme of TACs—if it knew, plus or minus 10, 15 or 20 per cent. over three or five years, what raw materials would be available for it to process—it could have more confidence when making investment decisions for the future. At present, all it has is a lottery.
The processing side of the herring industry became extinct under the seven-year closure, and it was impossible to revive it within a short period. The lesson to be drawn from that is that the processing industry must be given special consideration in the difficult and testing year ahead.
I have a constituent who has an interest in the boat building industry—the Minister kindly granted me an audience when we went into the detail of this earlier in the year. I have his interests very much at heart and in mind


because he is a prominent member of the Conservative party; he therefore deserves special attention. I say that slightly facetiously, but his substantial boat building company is in the port of Eyemouth. He is an important employer and his company provides an important service to the fleet not only in building boats but in refitting, refurbishing and reconditioning them. His prospects for orders are bleak.
I am disappointed by the Government's news that there is not to be a decommissioning scheme. If they had been more visionary, they could easily have produced a scheme that would not have exposed them to the kind of criticism that they received when they last produced such a scheme. It was subject to abuse. A figure of £45 million for the decommissioning scheme has been bandied about, and of course some of that money could come from Community funds. That £45 million is not an insignificant sum, it is substantial. I do not under-estimate the difficulties involved in finding such a sum, particularly when we consider the budgets available to the Ministry at the moment.
If the Minister had gone back to the Treasury and argued for fresh money—even if it was not as much as £45 million—he could have made substantial progress in taking some of the capacity out of the fleet. That would have offered some hope to boat builders, because they could then have taken on orders to build new boats equipped to carry out their tasks properly. At the same time, the decommissioning scheme could take capacity from the fleet, and we could move more readily towards the multi-annual guidance programme targets for 1992.
My stalwart Conservative constituent will regret the bad news. I will have much sympathy with him when I tell him that bad news; it will give me no great pleasure to tell him that the Government could have done much more. No doubt my stalwart Conservative constituent will tell me the same thing, but time will tell.
I want to refer tot the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland about conservation. A package of conservation measures should have been put together some time ago. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has been arguing for months, if not years, for the elements of a scheme which could have been up and running. I agree with my hon. Friend that that would not have been a painless scheme. It would have caused heartache and it would have been difficult to persuade the industry to accept it. However, we have lost much valuable time. There are opportunities and scope for Government action on conservation. The Government will be derelict in their duty if they do not move quickly in that direction.
I am worried that, in the financial crises facing the industry in the short term, we may lose the valuable benefits derived from the share fishermen's scheme—a system of share fishing that is unique to Scotland. I know that the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are aware of the problems with that scheme. There is some constructive tension—I believe that that is the phrase—between the lead Ministry in England and the Scottish Office. I believe that the Minister recognises that share fishing in Scotland is a unique scheme which may be damaged by default if the Government make proposals inimical to its continued prosperity.
The Government should consider very carefully what the Department of Social Security is doing to the income available to some of the members of the share fishing crews. Earlier today, I reminded the Leader of the House that the new change in unemployment benefit for part-time workers will have a severe financial effect on such crews. If a boat is tied up for servicing or because of inclement weather for four or five of the six-day benefit week and then it goes out and the crew earn more than £43 on a one day in the week trip, they will be denied benefit for the rest of that benefit week. That will prejudice them to the tune of £53·10 per crew member. One need not be a genius to work out that it is much easier to lie in bed for the sixth day and collect the £56·10 unemployment benefit than to go down to the sea in ships, do business in big and deep waters and then return to find oneself deprived of five of six days unemployment benefit.
The share fishery and other parts of the United Kingdom fishing industry have always constructively relied upon that system—they have not abused it—to support their income when boats have been laid up. The Government have under-estimated the impact of that change. Technical as it may sound, it will have a fundamental impact on available income.
When I first saw the social security regulations, I thought that share fishermen were exempt, because special provisions were deliberately and properly made for the industry. I am now told that that is not the case and that it will suffer as much as everyone else. It is not a matter of getting better lay-up schemes and trying to get compensation to the industry in other ways: we must be careful that the new regulations do not cause unforeseen and untoward difficulties.
The Government must quickly come forward with some ideas about the future for the catching sector, as well as for processing and boat building. I understand the Government's general free-market philosophy. The Minister would not have any difficulty persuading me about certain aspects of a mixed economy, free market and so on as they apply to the economy generally. However, my experience as a constituency Member is that there will be little stability in the fishing industry either now or over the next two or three years. It is a serious business for coastal communities that depend on fishing to generate a large part of their income. Fishing is a way of life. If the fishing industry goes down, it will be the equivalent of the Ravenscraig steel closure in Scotland.
The Government cannot wash their hands of the matter and stand back and let the market sort out the mess. If they do, they will be culpable of criminal neglect. There are available methods, but they will cost money. The Government must go to the Treasury and argue for the extra money. If not, the coastal communities that depend on fishing for their livelihoods will simply never forgive them.

Mr. Elliot Morley: The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) outlined in great detail and very knowledgeably the problems being faced by their local communities, not only on the catching side but on the production and shipbuilding sides of the industry. Whole communities rely on the fishing industry, particularly in the parts of the


world that those hon. Members represent. They have made many points with which I do not disagree, but I shall explore some of the issues that they have raised.
To be fair to the Minister, I recognise that the Government have had difficult negotiations in Brussels. I accept also that the maximum that we could expect the Government to negotiate is up to scientifically agreed levels. It is irresponsible to argue that there is a magic figure and that, in some way, we can exceed quotas. If we do not accept the best scientific advice available, there will be no fisheries.
It is important that we should know what steps the Government intend to take to ensure consistency of supply to the processing side of the industry. We need stability in the industry. When the fleet faces severely reduced quotas, we must ensure that consistency of supply is maintained. If we cannot maintain our supply from our own home fleet, we may have to look to third countries to make up the shortfall in raw materials. As the Minister is aware, that involves import tariffs. I should be grateful if the Minister would outline whether ways in which shortfalls of supply could be overcome were discussed in Brussels.
Like previous contributors, I am amazed that the Government are using a free market approach to decommissioning. At the height of advocating this free-market approach, the Government were giving out decommissioning grants as well as grants for building and improvements. As has rightly been said, the report of the Public Accounts Committee was not necessarily critical of the concept of decommissioning grants, but it rightly criticised the way in which the scheme was run, without any kind of targeting, planning or structure. I shall deal with the detail of that in a moment and suggest how it could be made to work better.
Conservation measures are vital. I should be interested to hear what was discussed at Brussels. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations have made some helpful suggestions to assist the industry to get out of the crisis facing it at present, and I very much hope that they are taken seriously. Some of those suggestions have related to an increase in mesh size and to experiments with square mesh. I understand that a derogation has been given to the president of the NFO to experiment with square mesh with fishing nets that have a smaller mesh size than the 90 mm minimum.
The question of spawning grounds is worthy of consideration. Indeed, I discussed this with the Minister, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who informed me that, on the basis of the scientific advice that he had received, restricting the catching of spawning fish would not necessarily improve the breeding stocks. While I do not want to quibble with the scientific advice that the right hon. Gentleman has received, by instinct I feel that, if there could be some restriction on fishing in spawning grounds when fish are spawning, that must be to the advantage of the stocks. I hope that the Minister will consider the scientific research that has been carried out on this.
I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the package of measures put forward by the fishermen themselves, which includes the limitation of extensions on nets to a 6 m maximum. They also suggest that the diameter of cod ends should be reduced to prevent the killing of juvenile fish and suggest placing restrictions on the nets currently

carried on board trawlers. They suggest making it an offence to carry nets of a different mesh size, and also a one-net rule to help to enforce conservation measures.
I should like to extend those suggestions and to ask the Minister to consider a regional fisheries policy, whereby there would be some protection for local fisheries, taking into account traditional and historic rights. I accept that, historically, fishermen have moved around the country to different fishing grounds, but some small comunities rely very heavily on their local fishing. I hope that some thought will be given to protecting them from the knock-on effects which might arise if the large east coast trawlers were unable to fish for white fish and moved to other fishing grounds or even switched to other types of fishing. I am thinking of prawn fishing and of the possible effects on the west coast traditional fishermen.
I should also be grateful if the Minister would give some thought to the way in which the quotas are allocated and managed within the United Kingdom. I noticed from the current issue of Fishing News that Aberdeen's producer organisation managed to keep its fleet fishing right up to the year end by allocating its quota among all the boats in the organisation, divided across the year. In Scottish terms, Aberdeen seems to have been successful in managing its fishing quotas. Perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from the way in which it has done that.
Will the Minister consider suspending the licences of those fishermen who persistently break their quota allocation? I was interested to note that there is a court case in Scotland at the moment in which some fishing boat owners who do not belong to producer organisations are claiming as a defence that they cannot be prosecuted in a criminal court for exceeding the quota limits because those fishermen who belong to producer organisations are not prosecuted criminally but are disciplined within the PO. I hope that he will comment on that and give an assurance that an anomaly will not arise whereby people get away with ignoring the quota rules.
The unacceptable discard rate of some fisheries is a cause for concern. It is tragic that some of the discard is haddock, which must be dumped back dead into the sea because the quota has been exhausted. Has any thought been given to organising the quotas to prevent that?
Norway has came out of the negotiations very well, increasing its total allowable catch by 2 per cent., while our fleets are suffering substantial cuts in Norwegian waters. I am concerned about the large proportion of whiting that has been transferred to industrial fishing, especially by the Danes. I have severe doubts about the justification for industrial fishing. I wonder whether it is a good use of the fish for industrial processing, especially whiting which can be used for human consumption.
Policing is important to ensure that our restrictions and regulations are obeyed. The number of boats that DAFS has available for policing has been cut from five to four. I hope that the Government are taking seriously the need to ensure strict policing of the quotas and to prevent the significant abuses which I do not think anyone would deny have occurred.
I can well understand why the Government are wary of a decommissioning scheme; there is no doubt that the previous scheme was abused. Some 50 per cent. of the money paid out in that scheme went to just 15 ships, the average payment to each being about £500,000. Some of those ships were put back into fishing to qualify for the


100-day minimum fishing time required for a decommissioning grant. Some companies even bought redundant trawlers so that they could apply for a decommissioning grant.
I do not doubt that the previous decommissioning scheme was a failure. It was abused and, most importantly, all the money went to the trawler owners and not a penny to the deck hands and crew. If we are to consider decommissioning schemes, as I believe that we must, I hope that they will include compensation for crew who do not have shares in the boat.
In the past we have provided substantial funds for redundant steel workers, although I accept that that was partly paid for from EEC funds. However, we have also provided substantial funds for redundant dockers, for which no EEC funding was available. That was financed by the Government. In addition, there have been substantial payments in the farming industry, such as for set-aside schemes and various other forms of compensation. There is no reason why the fishing industry cannot be assisted by decommissioning grants and support during its present difficulties. However, I recognise that there is still a need for some grants for modernisation in certain parts of the country where the fleet is aging and where there is not the overcapacity which exists elsewhere.
The failure of the previous decommissioning grant lay in trying to operate an interventionist policy in a free market system. We cannot have both. Because of the restrictions under which the fishing community must operate, there must be some structure, planning, intervention and assistance. If we do not give the industry that assistance, there will be no industry left and the many people who rely on it will be thrown on the scrap heap. Yet with a little thought, support, intervention and planning, we can ensure that our fishing industry gets through this difficult period and prospers. I hope that the quotas, the conservation measures and the other structures will begin to work and that we shall once again have a thriving and prosperous industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I am grateful to the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) for the moderate and balanced way in which they spoke. This is a serious subject. None of us is unaware of the gravity of the problems facing the fishing fleet in all parts of the United Kingdom. It is only reasonable that we should discuss these matters with the seriousness and intelligence shown tonight.
When the ministerial team negotiates, it does so for all parts of the United Kingdom and is conscious of the needs of all parts of the United Kingdom. While there may be debate on policy, as in all spheres, we present a solid front for the United Kingdom at negotiations. When we came out of the negotiations, we reported to representatives of fishermen from all parts of the United Kingdom who were in Brussels. Like the hon. Gentleman, who had the grace to say so, they recognised that the deal that we obtained was the best possible.
We set out our priorities to the House before we went into the negotiations. They were to increase the total allowable catches to the levels that are regarded as the best buy, as it were, by the International Council for Exploration of the Seas. It gives a range of possibilities and then recommends a best buy. The best buy was to combine fishing opportunity with conservation. To a large extent, we achieved that aim although we did not quite do so on cod or whiting, we succeeded on haddock. That was a significant negotiating achievement.
We achieved an underpinning of relative stability. That is important both in principle and materially. We were most anxious that, as in the past, the taking of cod from Greenland should be exclusively a British and German fishery. We did not want the fisheries policy to be fractured by a departure from that tradition. That was a difficult negotiation, because some member states felt that they had historic rights in those waters and would have liked to get back into that fishery.
As hon. Gentlemen have said, we succeeded in having the Hague preference applied to haddock. The amount that that represents is 36,280 tonnes. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was almost exactly right in his estimate of the amount that would be made available to the United Kingdom by that application.
We also achieved some flexibility on western mackerel. There was no cut in the TAC. The amount that we can fish in the North sea was slightly reduced from last year's amount.
We came home with many of the principal elements on our shopping list but, as hon. Gentlemen have said, that is the beginning, not the end of the problem. The fact that we managed to push up the quotas and TACs simply means that we have reduced the scale of the problem that would have existed had the original proposals been adopted.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me for some specific responses, which I shall seek to give. He said that full application of the Hague preference would have represented about 38,000 tonnes of haddock. In fact, we were able to obtain the same proportion as last year. That was the incremental amount that came to use from the Hague preference. We should have liked a larger amount, but we obtained as much as possible. The truth is that we obtained the same percentage as last year.
We managed to reduce the by-catch to Norway to 13 per cent. The original proposals would have left us with a rather higher figure. An allocation will go to other countries, too. The whiting by-catch takes account of the ICES estimates. The 1989 allowances had understated the amount of whiting taken in industrial fisheries.
We were not happy with certain elements, such as the fact that the Norwegian take of North sea herring was 29 per cent. It became clear in the negotiations that we would not win on that, and we had to accept it.
In Brussels we defined the precautionary total allowable catches, TACs, analytical or non-analytical total allowable catches. Some of them have a bit of science involved—for example, those relating to Channel cod. We did our best to push up those TACs where we thought we were justified. We did not get as much as we wanted, but we got some way towards what we were seeking. We cannot disregard the precautionary TACs; that would be the wrong route to follow. Our aim, as in other matters, is to produce a better science so that we can estimate the fisheries that are available.
A number of Ministers have begun to get worried about the technical conservation measures. That anxiety was not apparent at previous meetings. They share our belief that such measures should be at the top of the agenda. A high-level group, effectively senior officials from the member states, will get together quickly and it will produce its recommendations by the middle of the year. Those recommendations will come to the Council in the form of proposals by the end of July. I suppose, being realistic about the way in which the Community works, the proposals will form part of a package discussed at the end of 1990. If accepted, the date for application of the package may be the middle of 1991. That is a realistic assessment of the timetable for introducing a new series of conservation measures. To suggest their earlier introduction would be over-optimistic.
We have produced a consultation paper, which is with the industry now and which is largely based on its recommendations. Hon. Members have already said that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has had considerable input in that paper, as has the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which represents other parts of the country. The key is to get better selective fishing and selective gear. It is worth reminding the House that the 90 mm nets have been in operation for a year only. Those nets are rather like string shopping bags: when they get heavy, the meshes tend to close. It is also important to consider square mesh. Certain technical problems associated with the physical operation of that mesh will be studied at our laboratories in Aberdeen.
It is also important to consider the role of the extension piece and, as the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, to study the meshes round the cod end. We need to study the selectivity of the gear carried on board. In other words, we must try to make the quotas fit the catch more effectively and to introduce much greater selectivity in the fishery.
We are committed by the agreement to a cut in haddock fishing. We shall contact the industry as soon as we can after the Christmas holiday to discuss the best way to proceed. One possibility is to restrict the number of days at sea. We shall discuss that with the industry and we shall keep an open mind. We would not want to close down the entire fleet for X days per month because, as hon. Members have already said, we must remember the processing industry for which continuity of supply is essential. It is important that the industry should be able to satisfy consumer demand.
Hon. Members have mentioned the decommissioning scheme, and it is important to spell out why we thought it was not the right course to follow. A decommissioning scheme takes out capacity and does not necessarily reduce fishing effort. One of the problems is that more and more fishing effort is made in chasing fewer fish. It is not simply a case of heeding the Public Accounts Committee's criticism of the previous scheme. We could have devised a scheme to overcome at least some of the problems earmarked by the Public Accounts Committee, but we did not feel that it would be value for money but would prove expensive for the amount of tonnage removed.
Another important factor is that we are still in the process of finding out how big the fleet is. The registration process is not complete and we are not yet certain of the fate of the famous quota hoppers. There are 20,000 tonnes of quota hoppers in suspended animation because we do not have the definitive European Court ruling. They could

be knocked off our registers if, as we hope, we win the final ruling on quota hopping. We are in contact with Brussels about the implications of our decisions. We firmly hope that Brussels will understand our approach.
We believe that the answer lies in much better management. As I have said in my meetings around the country, if I had absolute truth at my disposal, I would be an archbishop, not a Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for that. We are talking to the fishermen about various ideas we have—including capacity aggregation and entitlement aggregation—to see whether they will work. We need to explore the notion of individually transferable quotas to enable the fisherman to take more decisions about his investment capacity and requirement. Technical conservation is essential to this debate.
It has been said that we are launching the fisheries and the fleet on to market forces. We spend £18 million a year on fisheries protection and control, £15 million a year on marine fisheries research, and in the past five financial years we spent £56 million in grant aid on vessels and El7 million on decommissioning. That must be stacked up against a landings value of £400 million. Therefore, the amount of public money involved in the fishing industry, in relation to its gross domestic product, is considerable. There is no fear of the industry being thrown exclusively to market forces. The Government believe that market forces have a role to play, alongside the support which the Government give and the framework which the European Community inevitably provides for fisheries management.
Subject to the Commission's approval, under the aids provision of article 92 of the treaty, we shall introduce a new grant aid scheme that will provide grants at a rate of 30 per cent. for all essential safety improvements. "Essential" means improvements necessary to comply with Department of Transport safety regulations. The back-up grants, to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred, will be at the 10 per cent. level necessary to provide the national grant element needed to secure the EC grants for modernisation and construction. There is nothing new about that; we already have the same arrangement for fish farming. When the fisherman succeeds in obtaining a Community grant, we will ensure that the complementary national grant is still provided.

Mr. Morley: Does the Minister accept that one of the objections put forward by the fishermen to the fact that the Ministry will not consider decommissioning grants is that a considerable amount of public money has been made available for modernisation and construction in the past? I realise that the construction element has been dramatically reduced, but what is wrong with the case for switching some of that money to decommissioning, bearing in mind the relevant point made by the Minister that a scheme could be constructed to get round some of his valid objections?

Mr. Curry: When we looked at the amount of money involved and what we are likely to get for it, we decided that this did not provide good value for money. We accept that the absence of a decommissioning scheme means that we shall have to look to the longer term with regard to targets. Every other decommissioning scheme proposed would also have failed to reach those targets which are fuzzy because of the uncertainties about the number of boats on the register and the quota hoppers. I am


confident that we will be able to negotiate an effective target and that the measures mentioned in today's statement, which will be unveiled when we consider our consultations with the industry, will bring us into line to achieve those targets.

Mr. Wallace: It is clearly important that the fleet does not ossify. While it is necessary to take out some capacity, it is also important to have an up-to-date fleet. I am worried lest the 10 per cent. national grant, supplemented by the FEOGA grant, should lead to difficulties. Thanks to the efficiency of the Ministry and of DAFS, the national grant comes through quickly, but grants from the EC often take a considerable time to arrive. The implications for debt repayments and interest payments are obvious. I am concerned that what the Minister proposes will not allow the fleet to develop, with damaging effects on boat buildings and on the long-term age profile of the fleet.

Mr. Curry: We are willing to examine any proposals to accelerate the arrival of grants from the Community on time. The wheels of the Community, like the wheels of God, grind rather slowly. Preoccupation with avoiding fraud has tended to pile bureaucracy on to the system; that is the difficulty.
If fishermen are allowed to take more of their investment decisions themselves and to decide how to handle their capacity more effectively, the way is cleared for a much more effective rationalisation of the structure of the fleet. We shall be discussing these ideas with the industry over the coming months.
This week, the Council of Ministers agreed to regulations that will provide aid for the marketing and processing of fishery and aquaculture products, and fisheries Departments will be drawing up a sectoral programme to provide a framework to set priorities for aspects of processing. Thus, there will be aid for this sector. I can understand the wish for stable supplies. While the idea of a rolling total allowable catch is attractive, it has drawbacks because the recruitment of young fish to the fishery can vary enormously from year to year. While stocks are low, fisheries are relying on single-year classes;

a rolling TAC would require setting TACs at low levels and not taking advantage of the years of relative plenty. I can see the attractions of the scheme, and if people come forward with valid ideas we are prepared to look at them, but we shall need to be seriously persuaded before we go down this route.
It is, of course, generally accepted that the fleet is too big. It is therefore difficult to see how we could encourage more boat building. The fleet will have to go through a period of rationalisation and we hope to harness market forces, in association with other elements that I have described, to improve quota management arrangements and speed up this process. If we can loosen the quota management regime and remove some of the restrictions on fishermen, we expect that successful fishermen will want to build new boats with new confidence—some of them, perhaps, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. No doubt that will be, as he said, to the benefit of the Conservative party if the gentleman that he cited is such a dedicated follower of the Government.
I hope that I have covered most of the points raised tonight. We have two major priorities to help to get the fishing fleet in shape. First, we need a real policy on conservation. We are beginning to see a genuine earnestness about putting one in place, and we shall do all that we can to propel and encourage it, and to participate fully in the elaboration of these programmes.
At the same time, we need sensible and constructive quota management arrangements. I believe that we are in a position to start freeing up the system, which will enable that management to be much more effective. Finally, we need sensible proposals from the European Community, representing an intelligent balance between fishing opportunities and the interests of conservation. That balance was not present at the beginning of our negotiations; it exists today and I hope that the lessons to be learned from the negotiations will be useful in future years so that, when we debate the fishing industry, we shall be able to say that it went through a period of great difficulty, that we recognise that we are a long way from the end of the road, but that a rational policy will facilitate a long-term future for an industry which, as all hon. Members have said, is vital to our coastal communities.

Central and Eastern Europe

Mr. Michael Marshall: It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity of introducing this short debate on developments in central and eastern Europe. Anyone who reflects on the events of the past few weeks will appreciate that the House would be failing in its duty if it did not examine them before rising for the Christmas Recess. The difficulty of analysing such a broad canvas is that events are moving at a rapid pace and almost anything one says may be overtaken by events before the weekend. Another is the sheer scale of the subject. I hope that the House will understand, therefore, if I concentrate my remarks on two or three main areas and touch on points which do not always get an airing in this House.
The democratic development moving steadily through central and eastern Europe is evident in its various forms in the Soviet Union, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria. The trend is distorted only by the exception of the recent horrible events in Romania. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will be able to comment on those events today, because I know that the Government reflect the feelings of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House in expressing horror at what has occurred in Romania.
I returned on Sunday from a visit to East Germany and West Germany on behalf of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, accompanied by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who I am delighted to see in his place, and the IPU secretary-general. During that visit, we explored not only recent developments in the two Germanies but ways in which this House might facilitate the process of dialogue both with existing parliamentarians and, perhaps more importantly, with the future politicians of East Germany who may be the making of the democratic development that we all want to see.
East and West Germany will be the main theme of my remarks, but I turn first to the background of the Soviet Union. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeated on many occasions, the developments in the Soviet Union that we have witnessed could not have occurred without the personal involvement in and commitment to glasnost and perestroika of President Gorbachev. If he and the Soviets had not made plain their unwillingness to intervene militarily in democratic protest, and had not dissuaded its military prevention by the Governments concerned, events might have taken a very different turn.
The Soviet Union clearly has great domestic problems. One must try to understand and have sympathy with those who, in seeking to move from a highly centralised to a decentralised structure, are inevitably facing strains on their economy and political systems. What can we do at this time to help them? The problem is on such a vast scale that it is unrealistic to imagine that we can do much on a bilateral basis. That is why I warmly welcome the signing recently of the trade agreement between the EC and the Soviet Union. It is probably on a Europewide basis that more opportunities can be found to provide the economic linkage that is essential if democratic development in the Soviet Union is to continue.
Industrial linkage is a theme to which I shall return in respect of other parts of central and eastern Europe.

Several British companies are playing an important part in that. One example is the recent joint venture between GEC and the Moscow telephone company, as part of the crucial objective of uprating the Soviet Union's telecommunications. I refer also to the work being done by Cable and Wireless—I remind the House of my interest in that company—in pursuing developments on the same lines.
Inevitably, much of our effort is directed towards wider co-operation with our western allies. That is certainly true of disarmament. Although we all have our separate perspectives, we must keep both the Warsaw pact and NATO in view when discussing the wider aspects of our relationship with the Soviet Union.
I know that the Minister has a special interest in space activity, and I believe that that, too, will play a part in both disarmament and other kinds of co-operation between Governments, in industry and throughout Europe. The current convergence of civil and defence technology will allow the satellites that give us weather information, help us to control floods and deal with drought, and carry out remote sensing and earth observation to monitor mutually balanced force reductions and, indeed, the whole peace-keeping process. I am glad to see this country once more beginning to reaffirm the wider, collaborative role of the European Space Agency. I welcome the recent agreement with the Soviets in relation to British cosmonauts, which will take effect in the near future—as, indeed, will the similar agreement with the United States about astronauts.
How can the West, and the United Kingdom in particular, assist the Soviet Union during the time it needs for development, not only economic but democratic? Let us consider specific examples of progress in other parts of eastern Europe. Many of us will have had a chance to see and appreciate the advances made in Hungary and Poland, which in some ways reflect what has been described as "goulash Communism" in Hungary, which lasted a decade or more, and the progress in Poland, going back to the remarkable work and courage of Solidarity in the early 1980s. Those two countries have experienced a relatively mature development of the democratic process; in such countries, however, the winner picking the winner, as it were, may be of the best use in furthering glasnost and perestroika. If the link between democratic and economic development is seen to be working there, the Soviets may be helped to move along the same track.
I applaud the Government's creation of a £25 million know-how fund for Poland. That was done at an early stage in the recent developments there because the Government saw an urgent need for help in such matters as food, management training and English language teaching. That determined an important principle—that the urgency of cases should be taken into account.
I am rather concerned about the view which is tending to gain ground, that economic aid should be related only to democratic development. I shall try to show later in my speech that in many instances democratic development is not possible until economic progress is made. While the former might be a nice ideal, it does not square with reality.
Bilateral effort has been important in Poland and I applaud it. I welcome the fact that, from 1 April, a similar fund of £25 million for Hungary will come into operation. It will help with the English language, for which one finds a thirst throughout eastern Europe, and with know-how,


which will be useful. Both know-how funds have been used to assist sponsored visits and to arrange political and industrial exchanges.
The political exchanges have provided opportunities for parliamentarians to meet and for visitors from Poland and Hungary to go to constituencies as well as to be involved here at Westminster. On the industrial side, however, we have some way to go. Many hon. Members were impressed by the case that Lech Walesa made for joint venture activity in Poland when he came here. He made a powerful argument and contrasted, somewhat ironically, the limited number of examples that he could cite involving the United Kingdom with the large number of bilateral exchanges with companies from the traditional enemy—the Federal Republic of Germany. In Budapest, an IBM official has been seconded to the United States embassy to assist with the detail of joint ventures.
To what extent can my hon. Friend the Minister assure the House that the Government are responding to such professional need in the growth of trade and investment in Poland, Hungary and the rest of eastern Europe? I hope that my hon. Friend will reaffirm that the effort to concentrate our efforts on the early success which has wider political significance attracts his and the Government's support.
I have already mentioned the Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Germany. I cannot claim that a four-day visit gives a comprehensive view, but one cannot but be staggered at the lightning changes evident on both sides. It is only six weeks since the Berlin wall started to come down. This year alone, 700,000 East Germans have moved for permanent residence in West Germany. That process continues at a rate of 2,300 per day. Like the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), I saw the flow continuing by the thousand.
Such is the regularity of the process that it is virtually becoming a normal part of daily life. It is almost unremarkable. It has, however, had a major impact on the East German economy. There is evidence of strain at all levels. When we talked to people there, we could not help feeling a great deal of sympathy and anxiety for many of them. I remember meeting a professor of medicine who is a leading activist in New Forum, which is perhaps one of the key groups in the emergence of new political thought and parties, who was grey with exhaustion because he had been involved in setting up political groups and trying to sustain the work of the medical department with which he was involved when many of its most skilled people had left for West Germany. That story is also true for Church leaders.
Those who have been most active in promoting democratic change are now inclined to think that they would like to return to private life, but I foresee problems if the old faces appear under new party labels. As a leading official in the Federal Inter-German Ministry said, a bad winter, continued economic collapse and the failure to achieve early democratic growth will result in East Germans voting with their feet. That is a fact of life.
What attitude should the Government adopt? They should make it plain that they accept the inevitability of economic unification. It is apparent that West German industry will be streaming all over East Germany on the

back of substantial Government assistance with infrastructure—road and rail links, the development of telecommunications and, in a wider context, anti-pollution investment, which is important to us all. West German political parties have daily contact with parties of the same name or those with which they are beginning to recognise certain links. Those political and industrial links are important in drawing the two countries closer together.
There may be a temptation to leave it all to West Germany, but that would be a fundamental mistake. It is clear from the talks that those of us who have visited East and West Germany have had with the Bundestag foreign affairs committee, with members of the IPU and with the Berlin Reichstag that there is a feeling that British involvement, a British lead in recognising the situation at this stage will have a much wider symbolism—not just because of the old wartime battles between Britain and Germany—which represents the sensitivity of German parliamentarians who recognise many of the old fears and resentments and want to assure the world and their western allies that they want the development of unification to have the support of their allies and they put Britain top of that list.
In a week when Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand are visiting East Germany, it is timely to ask how we can respond. We really should establish a know-how fund for the GDR. Sadly, I believe that economic strains will move towards pressures over food, just as in Poland. There are real opportunities to assist with language and management training. In addition the knowhow fund would be a valuable adjunct to the activities of our industrialists. I make no apology for raising that point of pragmatic self-interest. I have already mentioned the opportunities being exploited by West Germany. Clearly there is a feeling that a second German economic miracle is possible and that the extra market of 19 million people can be deployed to the advantage of Germany.
British industry also has a part to play. The tie-ups that have emerged in Europe in recent years—involving British companies which have particular alliances or formal partnerships with other European companies—may be the way forward, especially if those companies have West German connections. The recent Plessey-Siemens tie-up points to future opportunities for British companies through the West-East German connection.
As one reflects on the opportunities for the five traditional Lander of East Germany to join the 12 current Lander of West Germany, one thinks of the tremendous potential which must be involved in bringing together the Prussian and Saxon workers and work ethic with those of West Germany. That must result in a very powerful combination. If we wish to influence and be part of that development, we must be there in the early stages.
We have before us a chance to assist at the political level. We are talking about people in a political system who have no paper, no typewriters and no copying machines. They have had no experience of creating any sort of political organisation, of canvassing or of performing any such tasks.
In parliamentary exchanges and work such as the IPU and the Great Britain-East European Centre can perform, we can begin to offer our help, saying that while we may not have a perfect model here at Westminster, we can exchange ideas. We found that such exchanges were greatly welcomed. There is a great thirst for knowledge in


western Germany. The grass-roots activity—the chance to spend time with parliamentarians in their constituencies—is perceived as of equal value to taking part in the Westminster tradition, which is widely respected.
Looking beyond the immediate opportunities and developments, it is clear that major problems remain—in defence, in respect of the four-power agreement and over the Helsinki background—but I urge the Minister to accept the inevitability of economic unification, which is now under way, to confirm that the British Government and industry can play a part, and to move in parallel, as we approach elections in East Germany on 6 May, in making the political contacts which are of immense value.
No visitor to the German Democratic Republic can leave without having a clear recollection of the wall—that affront to western civilisation. One recalls what are called the steel woodpeckers and the tap, tap, tapping of the many people with hammers and chisels who, while getting mementos, in their own small way are helping to bring the wall down. The House can today send a message of support to all those who are working to bring the wall down. By our early initiative, we can show that we wish to use this opportunity to move forward towards the restoration of, in this case, the European community.

Mr. Tom Cox: It is a pleasure to speak following the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) because he and I, as officers of the IPU, were fortunate to be in West and East Germany and in West and East Berlin last weekend. As he said, we witnessed the enormous changes that have taken place in that part of Europe.
For the last 40 years, East Germany has been regarded as the most loyal supporter of hard-line Communism. It is surprising now to think that the people of that country are enjoying a feeling of freedom such as many of them have never known. While we welcome that, we must be aware of the problems and uncertainties that such changes can create, not only in Germany but throughout Europe.
It was made clear to us last week, as the hon. Member for Arundel said, that we in the West must ensure that free elections take place in East Germany, for there are still strong remnants of the old guard there. If given the opportunity, they will resurface, perhaps under some other name. And as we do all we can to encourage free elections there, we must not overlook the need for industrial development and prosperity in East Germany.
When we talked to people about the forthcoming elections—it was clear that they were enthusiastic about them—we found that they had no experience, understandably, of organising campaigns. I am sure that at election time we all, no matter what party we represent, complain about not having this and that. I have no doubt that we all say, "If only we had more equipment, the campaign could be run much more efficiently." We were told by East Germans that they have no equipment. For example, there would be enormous problems in securing small quantities of paper for election manifestos or addresses. There will be tremendous difficulties in mounting campaigns prior to the elections in May 1990.
As an officer of the IPU, I pay a warm tribute to the work that the union has done over a number of years. It became obvious during our visit last weekend that it is held in great respect in Europe and throughout the world. Many in East Germany look to it to help and advise

up-and-coming young politicians and newly formed political parties. I am sure that the IPU will seek to do that, and that plans are afoot already. Our expertise must be made available to the East Germans, but I hope that the Minister will deal also with financial help.
I hope also that all our political parties which have wide experience of campaigning will start to relate to fellow parties that are being set up in East Germany, so that parties that are respected in the United Kingdom can advise the new parties that are now emerging on what they have learnt over many years. If it had not been for the heroic resistance that was shown in October and November in East Berlin and other parts of East Germany, I am in no doubt that the old guard would still be in power.
On Saturday evening, we went to a dinner in East Berlin. Some of the members of the old guard were present, and it was amazing to listen to them. It became clear from questioning them that they still believed, after 40 years, that there was nothing wrong. I said to one of them, "When did you realise that things were wrong?" He replied, "Last October." I said, "What caused that realisation?" He answered, "The demonstrations which were taking place." I said, "If those demonstrations had not taken place, would you have realised that for the past 40 years you had been misleading the people of this country?" He replied, "No. We would still have been in power." It is only right that we ensure that the members of the old guard who are still around are not given the opportunity to regain power.
Along with free elections, there must be continuing prosperity, even if progress is slow initially. In the absence of that, members of a population of about 17 million would start to walk across the newly opened borders to start to establish themselves in West Germany. That would create unemployment problems and social and welfare problems. We were told that there are signs already of inadequate housing. Such problems would start to cause a great deal of instability.
Much has been said over the past few weeks about the future of Germany. There have been calls for reunification—a unified Germany. In today's edition of The Times there are examples of the differing points of view. I am sure that hon. Members have seen the photographs of Chancellor Kohl in Dresden. The headline in yesterday's The Times read "Reunification fever greets Kohl's visit". Yesterday, the Russian Foreign Secretary, Mr. Shevardnadze, gave warnings in Brussels. The headline on his visit in The Times said "Fears on German unity spelt out by Shevardnadze". That is an example of the current dilemma.
We in the West must begin to respond and to help. I am receiving letters from my constituents saying, "Of course we welcome the new freedoms, not only for East Germans but for the people of eastern Europe—but specifically East Germans," but they express a fear of a united Germany. Hon. Members may say "Those days are long past," but I am sure that the Minister will agree that many people in Britain hold such fears. We may say, "Don't worry about it," but, as the hon. Member for Arundel and I saw last week, unless East Germans can foresee prosperity, calls for the reintegration of Germany will undoubtedly lead to a powerful Germany.
The hon. Member for Arundel mentioned the comments that were made to us last week. Fears were expressed that a severe winter in East Germany will lead to


enormous problems with food and heating. I should be interested to hear from the Minister about the discussions that are taking place in the EC to tackle that problem. I am sure that there are stockpiles of food in the EC. If there is an emergency in East Germany in the new year, I hope that the West will organise help, which obviously will have to include food and other aid.
I should like to follow the point that was well made by the hon. Member for Arundel about Britain's involvement in the industrial development of East Germany. Not East or West Germans but our representatives criticised the lack of interest shown by British companies. It is not good for British industry to say, "Of course we are interested, but things are not clear enough yet for us to take a decision." We must show that we are willing to help, and that we have the necessary knowledge and expertise. We also have the money, and it will be interesting to learn what additional funding will be made available.
I am a member of the defence committee of the Western European Union. I could talk at length about the military changes that are taking palce and the problems that they will cause us in the West. Those changes will call for courage and imagination by the West in its response. To some extent, time is on our side in these matters. We are now moving away from the possibility of conflict so we need not rush into decisions.
There are real problems in East Germany. If we really are Europeans and belong to an alliance, we must support West Germany, because there are fears that many of the 17 million East Germans might cross the border into West Germany.
Over the past few months, we have seen events which offer hope not just to my generation, but for generations that are growing up in the European Community. As the East Germans begin to take their country away from a dictatorship towards democracy, we must support them. From the very warm reception that we received in Germany last week, I have no doubt that help from this country would be warmly welcomed by the East Germans.
I cannot believe that very much can divide the House on issues such as these. Although this debate is taking place at a very unfashionable hour—debates that contain much of substance often take place at these times—I hope that we will hear from the Minister that the Government have a commitment to help, with their technical and financial resources, a country which, after 50 years, is beginning to see a return to democracy.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I must congratulate my colleagues in the Inter-Parliamentary Union on their successful trip to East and West Germany. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) have given us a fascinating insight into their visit last week. I have not seen the wall since it began to be demolished, but I had the dubious privilege of passing through checkpoint Charlie on the first day that it opened after the wall was built, because I was stationed in that part of the world at the time. Things have changed a great deal since then.
The IPU in its centenary year has much to celebrate. We had an extremely successful conference in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel, our chairman, was

the president during that conference and as a result I had the honour to lead the British group. I had the pleasure of addressing the conference, and I made some inquiries about the problems that existed 100 years ago. I was rather surprised to discover that the problems then had a rather familiar ring to them. In those days, there were problems with drugs, in particular the opium trade. There were also conservation problems, because ivory stocks were being depleted, particularly in the Congo. Revolutionary changes were taking place then as they are now, and they are familiar to us all.
The most important and significant event from the point of view of the British group of the IPU was the visit to this country five years ago this month of Mr. Gorbachev, just before he became leader of the Soviet Union. He came here leading the Soviet Union IPU group. Mr. Andropov fell ill then, and died soon after. Mr. Gorbachev took over the leadership of the Soviet Union almost immediately after his visit to Great Britain. That gave this country a considerable opportunity to influence him towards the advantages of our type of democracy. Other hon. Members and I had the honour and pleasure of meeting him and were extremely impressed.
We were able through the IPU to exert some influence upon Mr. Gorbachev and show him that there was a much more successful way of achieving the advancement that he clearly wanted for his people. He was not blind to the faults of the Communist system, as the people of East Germany were, as the hon. Member for Tooting told us. They woke up to the problems only in October this year. Five years ago, Mr. Gorbachev readily recognised the great disparity and what had to be done to put it right. That exciting situation is now being unveiled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel mentioned the technology that is so important to eastern Europe and the balanced force reductions. The Soviet bloc has an enormous way to go. I have a defence interest too, as I am a member of the Select Committee on Defence. The disparity between the two armies is enormous. However, we will not help Mr. Gorbachev if we drop our guard prematurely. We must approach matters in a sensible and balanced way. We must make it worth his while substantially to reduce his forces before we can reciprocate.
We have considerable contributions to make, particularly in educating people behind what was the iron curtain which we hope will never return. I welcome the support and help that the West can give by funding an educational programme. It is extremely valuable, and we must get on with it, because it will help enormously with our trade and our ability to influence those parts of the world. Hon. Members have heard in the media that there is much good will towards the Westminster type of democracy, so we would be foolish not to grasp this opportunity with both hands and ensure that people in central and eastern Europe are made fully aware of how they can introduce such a system and choose between the available alternatives when deciding what route to follow. It will not be an easy path for them, and we must all hold our breath for their success.
We saw what happened in Tiananmen square not so many weeks ago, and we are seeing what is happening in at least one country in eastern Europe now. We must give encouragement but at the same time make sure that people are not running so fast that the fledgling democracy collapses. I would hate us to drop our guard because we


had so much sympathy for what has happened in eastern Europe, only to find that an even greater monster had grown up in its place. That would not help Mr. Gorbachev's leadership. It would not help him to resolve the dilemma of eastern Europe and ensure that the economy comes up to standard so that he can give the people of eastern Europe the prosperity that we now take for granted.
There are trade difficulties. Our involvement with the United States of America sometimes gives me grave cause to wonder, especially when we find it difficult to sell submarines to the Canadians because of some small quantity of technology in the submarines that had been bought from the United States perhaps 30 years before. I cannot imagine why that should be. We certainly cannot allow such an issue to hold us back if we are to take full advantage of these unprecedented opportunities.
At the same time, we must be careful that we do not give away all our secrets on a plate. We are often criticised for being extremely innovative and for failing to take advantage of our innovations. That is indeed the case, because we have lost many opportunities to the United States of America, Japan and other parts of the world when we could have exploited our designs and kept our lead. That would have helped our balance of payments considerably.
However, we still have a major contribution to make towards the lowering of world tension. The Inter-Parliamentary Union has done an enormous amount during the past 100 years to help. All the members of the IPU worldwide are to be congratulated on the way in which that body has developed and given parliamentarians an opportunity to exchange views and to make relationships that Governments sometimes find it hard to make. With the financial support that the Government can provide, the IPU can play a major role in providing democratic education to those people who need our advice and support. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to make some encouraging remarks about that, so that we shall be able to play our full part in the years to come.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) on giving the House the opportunity to discuss the exhilarating and epoch-making events in eastern Europe. I thank him and the other hon. Members who have spoken for their thoughtful and detailed contributions on the opportunities and dangers that lie ahead. The hon. Gentleman has also given us our only chance to discuss the unfolding horrors that have taken place in another east European country as we learn daily of the events in Timisoara. We know that Ceausescu has said that he will introduce in Romania the same reforms that have taken place in the newly democratised countries of eastern Europe only
When the beech tree bears apples and reeds bear flowers.
Sadly, the people of Romania cannot wait that long.
The abiding image of the past few days that haunts all our imaginations is that of the woman in an agony of despair offering her unborn baby to the bayonets, with the cry, "Take my child, he has no future but starvation." Ceausescu's feudal edict that women should bear four children, with no control over their fertility, is evidence that he sees no limits to his despotism—and there is no limit to his megalomania. Romania has become a newly

under-developed country. He is leading it into a new dark age—a place of ignorance and fear controlled by the irrational forces of cultural barbarism, language pogroms, and the shrinking rights of the individual to those of a medieval vassal.
There is forced urbanisation. The slums inflicted on Britain in the last century are being replicated in modern Romania. Its picturesque villages are being bulldozed; and shoddy flats, many without internal sanitation, are replacing them. It is a country where, incredibly, the horse is promoted as the alternative to the car and the candle to electric light.
Today we hear that the new estimate from an East German news agency of the numbers of martyrs of Timisoara stands at 4,000, including dozens of children. The House now has an opportunity to express its outrage and to salute the vision and bravery of the martyrs. One hundred and fifty years ago last month, there were martyrs in my constituency, when 20 people were shot down. They were Chartists who were marching in a similar cause—in the cause of a wider democracy. They spoke of their willingness to sacrifice their lives in what they described as a noble cause.
We are now celebrating the anniversary of that event. A new generation of children know about those who died in their town 150 years ago. We have erected a tombstone to honour those 20 martyrs whose graves have been dishonoured for a century and a half. The valuable lesson is that the children immediately make a connection between the events of Newport of 1839 and the events of Tiananmen square, and will now connect them with the events of Romania during the past few days.
The names of Timisoara and Tiananmen square will live for ever in the annals of infamy. Those deaths must spur us into action. Parliament can take practical steps to curb the excesses of Ceausescu and to hasten his downfall. That action is not longer a political choice. Timisoara has made it a duty for all of us to work to end the reign of the Pharaoh Ceausescu and his dynasty. He has erected a vast mausoleum by destroying the centre of picturesque Bucharest and creating a palace to his own memory, to his ego.
We must now take the opportunity to gain from the collapse in the whole landscape of world power that has been in place, seemingly immutable, since the time of the Yalta conference. The metamorphosis is taking place and democracy is spreading like an agreeable contagion. Whole nations, with their new knowledge, have become restlessly ungovernable, and leaders have lost their will to govern. At last, we can escape all the waste and futility of the past 45 years, when both super-powers backed tyrannies in Europe, Asia, south America and Africa either because they were capitalist or because they were Communist, regardless of the degree to which those countries oppressed their own peoples. Now, happily, America is critical not only of Cuba and Nicaragua, but of the Right-wing Governments of Chile, Colombia and, today, of Panama. The Soviet Union strongly condemns Romania and tells the truth about the atrocities there.
During the past few days, the Minister has spoken with courage and eloquence of his condemnation of Romania. There are other things that we can do. Our duty is to arouse the same appetite for democracy in all parts of Romania as has been evidenced in the new democratised countries of eastern Europe. That cannot happen while the majority of the population of Romania are being deceived


by their own media. It is signficant that the riots and demonstrations have occurred in areas where people know the Hungarian language—most are either Hungarian or German speakers—and have heard the broadcasts from other countries. It is a sad fact that Nadia Comaneci, when she escaped from Romania, had to cross the border before she heard for the first time that the Berlin wall had been breached, such is the news blackout in Romania.
We have an instrument by which we can inform the people throughout Romania of the truth of Timisoara. They must be told that no Government, even that of Ceausescu, are immovable. Action has already been taken to expand the Romanian language services provided by the BBC World Service. Another practical step, which was reflected in the speeches of all hon. Members who have spoken of their vision of the Europe of tomorrow, is to initiate a Pan-European campaign of East and West to cement the new reality of life in Europe by not only thinking democratically but acting in unity with them to expose to the people of Romania the excesses of Ceausescu. We must pressurise that regime with economic sanctions. Although he has isolated himself from most of the western world, he still has strong but vulnerable economic links with the eastern world.
Most of all, we should mount an information campaign by expanding the activity of our broadcasting media which have had such effect in the changes that have already taken place in other eastern European countries. We must ensure that the people of Romania know that their country is the final Stalinist gulag of Europe. It is wrong that the people should have to wait, in Ceausescu's words, until
the beech tree bears apples and reeds bear flowers.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I congratulate the troika of fellow officers of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on their speeches. I gladly join them in this consensus debate in sending a signal of support to forces in central and eastern Europe struggling, mostly successfully, for fundamental change.
I fully agree that the pace and scale of change is almost alarming. Even this evening we heard the news that the Communist party in Lithuania has declared UDI from the Communist party of the Soviet Union. That has substantial implications for the role of the Communist party as the cement for the Soviet empire.
To put the pace of events into perspective, we must remind ourselves that only on 17 November this year was the student demonstration in the streets of Prague bloodily suppressed. Much has happened in the weeks that have passed since then.
Only two countries stand out from the general trend, leaving aside Albania, which has not been mentioned. First, there is Romania, which was described so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West. We congratulate the Minister on the proper tone in which he has condemned the savagery of the suppression of popular demonstration in Timisoara. Opposition Members recognise that we have little leverage over the Government of Romania—because they are relatively autarchic in their economic structure—but perhaps we could at least send a signal.
The Foreign Office could advise the Palace that the honorary knighthood conferred on President Ceausescu during his visit here in the late 1970s should be withdrawn. Equally, it could be requested that the Queen formally hand back the star of the Romania that was granted to her by the President of Romania. Is there a reason in principle why the Foreign Office should not tender that advice and why the Palace should not accept it as a gesture of symbolic importance?
The other exception is the sad country of Yugoslavia, which has not been mentioned tonight. It was in the vanguard of reform in the past, but the very existence of the federal state of Yugoslavia is now in question. There are real fears of either a break-up or a military Government there. We should do nothing that in any way encourages secession of the Slovenes or the Croatians.
The events of the past months have been akin to a volcanic eruption. When such a vast stirring of the earth occurs, there are a series of subterranean movements, natural movements, the course of which cannot be clearly discerned by those who stand above them. Part of that natural movement is the whole concept of middle Europe —Mitteleuropa. The Minister will be aware of the fascinating conference held in Budapest in November. The representatives were Italy, a member of the European Community, Hungary, a member of COMECON, Austria, a member of the European Free Trade Association and Yugoslavia. It recognised that the infrastructure needs to be improved as the journey time to Trieste is longer than it was at the time of the Austro-Hungarian empire. During the time of the Italian presidency of the EC, Czechoslovakia is also expected to join that grouping, which is looking at means of regional co-operation.
Mitteleuropa is stirring. The exciting developments in that area have been recognised by the Japanese. After the G24 meeting in Brussels, the Japanese Foreign Minister, alone of the Foreign Ministers at that meeting, went to Austria and at Sopron met Gyula Horn, the Hungarian Foreign Minister and Alois Mock, the Foreign Minister of Austria. Perhaps a signal for the future is the fact that Mitsubishi decided to locate a new plant not in Styria, as the Austrians had hoped, but in Szent Miklos in Hungary.
The South Koreans, in part for political reasons and for recognition, have shown great interest in Hungary. As a number of my colleagues have mentioned, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), the sad thing is that perhaps British business is behind. The South Koreans, the Japanese and others are willing to look long at the developments in central Europe.
The developments in eastern and central Europe pose a question mark over the concept of Europe that stems from the Delors initiative. The Single European Act, 1992 and all the other exciting developments stem from a time when one did not, and probably could not, anticipate what has happened in eastern Europe. Those developments are based on a much narrower concept and definition of Europe.
To what extent can the Delors concept of Europe be accommodated within the new, wider definition of Europe? We noted what the Minister said about the new agreement between EFTA and the Community. Although the dust has not yet settled, it is clear that, if the new Europe, wider than the Delors concept, is to develop, an institutional framework must be established at some stage. No such framework is in prospect yet.
We have seen how the SPD congress in Berlin and the political parties in East Germany have reacted. The Minister, because of his office, may not be able to comment as he would wish, but it is sad to note the contrast between the courage of Dr. Vogel in saying that the western boundaries of Poland are sacrosanct and the unwillingness of Chancellor Kohl to say clearly that the Oder-Neisse line is not in question.
There is no way in which the Federal Chancellor can benefit from keeping that question open. He will not gain votes which would otherwise go to Republicans. By failing to answer the question, he only fans flames that may revive the worst sort of memories of revanchism. I hope that the Government will urge Chancellor Kohl to make clear formally, directly and publicly the recognition by his own party and the Federal Government that the western frontiers of Poland are fixed and are not in question as a result of these developments.
I have one or two words of caution about the Warsaw pact. We should not think of Mr. Modrow in East Germany as a liberal. There are clear signals that he is one of those who is dragging developments in central Europe. The Communist parties in central and eastern Europe still hold the key ministries—the Interior Ministry and the Education Ministry. Happily, Czechoslovakia is an exception to that and, although arriving late in the field, it appears to have outdistanced some of those who started before it.
The key question must be that which colleagues have already mentioned: what do we do with this victory for democracy? We must respond with some humility and not assume that we have all the answers. I have a personal nightmare that, when the Channel tunnel terminal at Waterloo opens, the first travellers to come out of it will step right into the cardboard city which is developing apace at Waterloo station. That is a sign of one of our democracy's social failures.
We have to win our credentials in the wider European context by showing that commitment to Europe that the Government have signally failed to do. I do not blame the Foreign Office for this, because it is subject to other orders, but we must be careful that we do not feed suspicions that we show an enthusiasm for the wider Europe only as a device to dilute what has already been achieved in terms of European integration.
We must concentrate on bringing central Europe into the main stream. I have heard the analogy used that central and eastern Europe are like a severed limb and that microsurgery is needed to bring the two parts of Europe together. Microsurgery in that context means a network of relationships right across the board, including professional organisations and others.
The know-how fund has already been established for Poland and will, from 1 April, 1990, be set up for Hungary. Are the funds new money, or are funds being diverted from existing money in the Overseas Development Administration vote? The emphasis on Poland and Hungary was understandable at the time, but since the decisions have been made, Czechoslovakia has come on stream. To what extent are the Government now prepared to include Czechoslovakia in a similar know-how fund?
How does the Minister respond to the similar call made by the hon. Member for Arundel in respect of East Germany? I concede that East Germany is different because it is already partly linked to the European

Community through its special relationship with West Germany. Perhaps a far stronger case can be made for Czechoslovakia.
How can the Minister ensure that the money is spent across the spectrum? What sort of missionary work is being done among professional and other organisations? What publicity is being given to this? The impression that I have gained from talking to various organisations is that they are not yet aware of the opportunities. I hope that many of our professional organisations will find placements within their structures for their sister organisations in central Europe. Does the Minister see scope for expenditure on party political activities? The Federal Republic of Germany and Austria already have foundations that receive public funds indirectly. It is surely a properly democratic investment to allow political parties from this country to meet their opposite numbers in central and eastern Europe. I hope that the Minister will confirm that such exchanges will not be ruled out in principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting and the hon. Member for Arundel queried the readiness of the Government to respond flexibly to new developments in central and eastern Europe in terms of embassy staffing. To what extent have the Government considered staffing levels in our embassies—particularly the cultural and commercial posts in them? Are we geared to respond flexibly to these new opportunities?
I hope that the Minister will have ample time to answer the questions that I have asked.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): It is a pleasure to have another opportunity to talk about the immensely important changes in eastern Europe. We had a good debate a couple of Fridays ago, to which the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was a major contributor. The hon. Gentleman is silent tonight, but I note that he has stayed to listen to this important debate.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) for raising this subject. The IPU certainly has an important role to play. Its role has been difficult in the past; it has tried to keep open connections and contacts with people who were not those with whom the IPU would have liked to have contact. Now it has to transfer its contacts—joyfully, I am sure—to genuinely and democratically elected partners. The 1PU has an important role in validating the newly elected parliamentarians of the countries of eastern Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel spoke of the scale of the changes in the Soviet Union. We must be humble before that scale of events. Perhaps we should also be humble about our capacity to influence them, but I think that we have a small chance of doing so. The Prime Minister played an honourable role in recognising the genuineness of the Soviet reforms early, when it mattered, and in recognising that Gorbachev was qualitatively different from previous Soviet leaders.
The Soviet Union is intensely preoccupied with its own changes, but if it proposes areas in which we can help—it has not yet done so—we must respond. Perhaps that response will be made in terms of parliamentary contacts. We look forward to the twice-postponed visit of the representatives of the Supreme Soviet, which is now


assuming a role that would have been inconceivable only a few years ago. We look forward to welcoming those representatives to our country in due course.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I omitted to say earlier that we are appreciative of the common ground that we share with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and of the excellent co-operation that exists. The visit to which my hon. Friend refers is part of that continuity and demonstrates the value that the Soviet Union attaches to that connection and that it wishes to sustain it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to his Department for their work in that connection.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, which I shall convey to the officials who undertake the work to which he refers.
I am happy to say that the £25 million of know-how funds to which he referred has been doubled to £50 million, which is a considerable amount in terms of expenditure on the movement of people, salaries and expertise rather than on major capital equipment. We shall not find ourselves short of money for good projects, which is an aspect on which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) also touched.
We have ventured into the sensitive tarritory of Government funding of political activities, and that is why I took the precaution of issuing an invitation to the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), which they have accepted, to join me on the fund's steering group. If we are to support financially political activities, it should be done on an all-party basis. And certainly it should be done.
We ought not to stand back from the process of developing democratic institutions because we are nervous about having any involvement in such activities. Obviously we shall not involve ourselves in campaigning, but we shall take an interest in developing contacts between the various parties of central and eastern Europe and their equivalents in this country.
There must be equivalents in this House to all the parties that exist in central and eastern Europe, for the House embraces nationalists and various factions of liberals and democrats. Now that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is in his place, I can cite also a group within the Labour party. When we last debated these matters, profound and moving speeches were made by the Trotskyite faction.

Mr. Flynn: Did the Minister watch a Channel 4 programme on Sunday morning about a fortnight ago, which showed a distressing example of aspiring Hungarian politicians receiving tuition in how to deceive the electorate? It concerned a promise to increase state child benefit without really making any such commitment, by using guile to break that promise later. I hate to introduce a controversial note, but would it not be better to concentrate on teaching the emerging politicians of eastern Europe the best of our political practices, not the worst?

Mr. Waldegrave: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. I shall not sound any note of controversy either, but there are examples from recent decades of both good and bad politics. The Opposition may point to bad examples of

which Conservatives were guilty, but I suspect that I could give examples of bad practice among Opposition Members too. Nevertheless, we are united in stressing the key point that, in free elections, the people must be the final arbiters.
We must not be too squeamish about holding back from any involvement in democratisation, provided that a balance is maintained across the spectrum of political parties. That is why the Government invited representatives of all political parties to be represented on the know-how fund steering committee. Perhaps the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East can add to the political spectrum.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Minister will realise that, as I am opening the next section of the debate in 10 minutes' time, I am not allowed to speak in this section, but I can ask him a question. He referred disparagingly to those who, over the years, have preferred the Leftist opposition led by Leon Trotsky to the repressive element led by Stalin. Does he recogise that it was Stalin's agents who, nearly 50 years ago, murdered Trotsky for leading that opposition?
When, about 10 days ago, I was fortunate enough to spend just short of two days in East Berlin and Leipzig, the young people whom I met were keen to bring about anti-corruption committees, free trade unions, free political parties, freedom of assembly and a free press. They were keen to retain public ownership rather than giving away what the East German economy had built up —albeit with the bureaucratic mismanagement and totalitarianism that had developed over the past 40 years. They were far more interested in listening to the ideas of the Left opposition than in listening to those of capitalists.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am delighted to have spurred the hon. Gentleman into speech. We in the West can offer a tremendous pluralism of ideas, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to offer his, as he is able here to offer them to the electorate. The joy is that people in East Germany and Czechoslovakia will be able to submit the same ideas to their electors.
I have a suspicion—which I believe may be shared by the hon. Member for Walsall, South—that the ideas of Leon Trotsky will not ultimately win the competition; but who am I to say? It will be for the people of Czechoslovakia and East Germany to decide. It may well be that, as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East suggests, the Stalinists have been wholly overthrown in eastern Europe by Trotskyite groups. The people whom I saw in Wenceslaus square did not look like Trotskyites to me, but perhaps they were good at disguising themselves.

Mr. Anderson: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is not a Trotskyite.

Mr. Anderson: Before I enter into the Stalinist-Trotskyite controversy, may I ask the Minister again whether we are talking about new money or money from the existing ODA vote?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question. I am afraid that I was diverted by my extremely pleasurable debate with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, with whom I always enjoy exchanging views.
I am delighted to give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that the money in the know-how fund—£50 million for Poland, £25 million so far for Hungary—is completely new money, on a different "line", as the technical jargon would have it. I am happy to say that my colleagues have awarded that money to the Foreign Office for it to spend on these important projects.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there would be more money for other countries, such as Czechoslovakia and East Germany. He was right to say that we have put the emphasis on Poland—which is experiencing an acute crisis and facing a tough winter—and on Hungary: both countries have high per-capita debt figures. I do not rule out further funds, however. Do not let us forget Bulgaria. Astonishing though it may seem, the spectacular events in neighbouring countries may have prevented us from concentrating on Bulgaria enough, although I do not criticise anyone for that. Bulgaria has removed the leading role of the party, and is talking about genuinely free elections. A number of countries will be legitimate claimants for further resources in due course, and I certainly do not rule out such provision.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East also mentioned the response of the European Community, and I have considerable sympathy with his views. Although he teased us about our commitment to Europe, I do not think that, fundamentally, there is much disagreement between us. The hon. Gentleman does not want a fortress Europe; he shares, I think, the scepticism of his party about the unified central bank and the possibility of too much commitment to a central currency. The main point on which the House is agreed is that the Community must not put up barriers against the emerging new democracies in eastern Europe. We must remain flexible enough to make arrangements with them that will help them economically and democratically.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) made a point that it is important to make in all these debates—that the changes are far from permanent. We must spend some part of each of these debates reminding ourselves that defences will continue to be needed. We must keep our insurance policies in place.
I have to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I hope that I do not embarrass his Front Bench by doing so. He has taken some part in the events, especially those in Hungary and Romania, because he has done some good broadcasts. I am happy to say that, as a result of his asking at Question Time, I think, whether we could do more broadcasting, I was able, armed with the pressure he put on me, to go to see Mr. John Tusa of the World Service. We now have an extra, and useful, quarter

of an hour a day of broadcasts in the Romanian language. I think that that is helpful. I have taken up some of the extra quarter of an hour already, and I am sure that the hon. Member will join in shortly.
On a more serious note, it is important at this time, of all times, when the Romanian Government are taking steps to try to prevent any flow of information or movement of people, to have such broadcasts. The only access we have is through the broadcasting organisations using the Romanian language, so the BBC Romanian language service is critical at the moment. I am sure that the House will join me in welcoming that additional broadcasting time. I hope that good use is made of it.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel touched on the huge issue of the reunification of Germany. To judge from what the Leader of the Opposition said during his recent visit to East Berlin, both sides of the House take somewhat the same view. We do not for a moment doubt the right of the German people to reunification. We cannot choose between self-determination and political rights in one country or another, but it is right for those who are a little further back from the intense emotions that are bound to be expressed in Germany to say, "Do be a little careful about the security structure of Europe in the process. We know that you have waited 40 years, but let us, if necessary, ask you, not necessarily to wait, but to take account of the sensitivities of your neighbours in the immediate steps ahead because it would be terrible to upset the apple cart of progress by taking steps that caused a dangerous reaction." It is not that we are in any way challenging the right of those people to decide their own future, but perhaps it is fair to ask them—it is a difficult thing to ask after they have been divided for so long—to look also at the geopolitics of where we are in Europe and not to upset the apple cart of progress by going too fast.
The progress is welcome. The debate is welcome, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel for initiating it. It would be proper to have a debate on the subject almost every day, events are moving so fast. There is something new to announce every day. Mr. Havel now seems set to be the elected president of Czechoslovakia. In the countries where progress is being made, we are not quite certain of it. There may be reactions or difficulties. We are not yet wholly over the watershed. That means that the attention of the House and the western nations to the progress that is being made and the help we can offer through broadcasting and all the other means is still needed to carry those countries into a secure future of democracy and freedom.

Ambulance Dispute

Mr. Dave Nellist: As we move into the 15th week of one of the most serious national industrial disputes that has occurred in Britain, people outside this place will be amazed that this is only the second debate on the issue in the House of Commons.
I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who managed to secure the first debate some weeks ago, is here at 2 o'clock in the morning. I am not surprised that the Government are afraid of a debate on the ambulance dispute. They did not provide one in Government time because the shameful role played by the Government team has now plummeted to new depths. They are responsible for deaths in Coventry, Birmingham, London and elsewhere.
The Army is on the streets of Coventry. I received a telephone call from the mother of one squaddie saying that the Army have a carrot-and-stick approach. The carrot is £30-a-day standby money and the stick is the threat of the glasshouse. One staff sergeant in Welwyn Garden City who showed an affinity with the ambulance workers and spent seven hours on the picket line outside their station was returned to Gloucester barracks and threatened with disciplinary action.
The Government can pay squaddies £30 a day; they can spend £200,000 on advertising in the press; they can watch directors get 28 per cent. pay increase; they can allow Members of Parliament to get an 11 per cent. pay rise—yet still they insist that ambulance workers must take a pay cut. Frankly, that is scandalous.
In 1986, ambulance workers were due parity with fire fighters. There is now a £60 difference between their wages. I could read out the statistics, but I can do better than that. I shall quote a letter from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), to the Secretary of State saying that he was
not previously aware … that the pay difference … is now £60 a week, and … there are striking differences in conditions of service between the ambulance personnel and their counterparts in the fire service. For example the latter group is eligible for free prescriptions, and dental and optical treatment, their retirement age is 55 as opposed to that of the ambulance service which is 65.
He concluded his letter:
Firemen and policemen have all received increases above inflation, and ambulance personnel feel embittered that they should be asked to settle for only 6·5 per cent. I have to tell you that I have to see the logic of their claim, and would ask you to look at this one again because there is a dedicated ambulance service out there, and it is a pity they feel constrained to take industrial action to draw attention to their grievances.
After writing such a reasonable letter, it is a pity that a few days later the Minister felt that he had to apologise, crawl away and say that he did not really understand the ramifications of the dispute. Although he had written a letter some 10 weeks into the dispute he then tried to deny it. He is not here tonight, so I have read out his letter.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) is not here either. The dispute reveals a split in the Tory party because of public pressure and support for the ambulance workers. The only Tory Members present are the Under-Secretary of State for Health and, presumably,

his parliamentary private secretary. No other Tory is willing to come to the House and defend the Government's shameful record.
It is little wonder that ambulance workers are fired up and angry. There is no doubt that they have public support. According to opinion polls it is between 83 per cent. and 95 per cent. They have the support of 3,500 controllers and they certainly have the support of the control assistants who are paid even less than they are. They even have the support of the Police Federation. At a press conference, the chairman of that federation backed the action of fellow emergency workers. The opinion polls show that they have the support of the public, and would have that support even if they were taking strike action, which they are not.
In that context, I want to nail one lie tonight. No ambulance worker is on strike. The ambulance workers have been locked out throughout the country. They are not taking strike action and, where they are allowed to do so, they are working without pay to provide a service which, as dedicated professionals, they are committed to give.
The Tory Government have contemptuously rejected arbitration. I am not the greatest fan of arbitration, and there is probably a little between my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston and myself about that. Arbitration, by definition, involves a compromise, and I believe that the ambulance workers' claim is fully justified and that they should not have to give up any part of that claim. In 1977—78, the fire fighters did not win their pay formula—to link their pay to the top 25 per cent., the upper quartile of British earnings—through arbitration. They won it through action.
But any half-decent person, on having the ambulance workers' case put before him, would not fail to provide justice to those workers. That is why the Tory Government will not go to arbitration. They know that the workers' case is unanswerable.
The result is that we get half-truths and lies from the Government and their spokesmen. For example, the Secretary of State for Health said, in effect, "The trade union leaders recommended acceptance, yet these members have rejected that advice." But the Conservatives have been saying for years, "Give the unions back to their members because the members know best." When the members reject a pay offer, suddenly they do not know best.
We hear that 95 per cent. of staff in the National Health Service have settled. Many have settled above the 6·5 per cent. figure, and many have not. They include midwives, speech therapists and other professional groups who feel decidedly upset about having to take a pay cut, as the ambulance workers are being asked to take, and they are still in dispute with the management.
In today's "PM" programme, the Secretary of State for Health said that, if the money was given to the ambulance workers, it would have to come out of patient services. In other words, there would have to be another cut in the NHS. How despicable for the Government to trade off inadequate health services to maintain the wages and conditions of those in emergency services such as the ambulance workers.
I remind the Tory Members who are not here tonight that it did not bother the Secretary of State for Health and his colleagues when, in July 1987, we debated the pay linkage formula for Members of Parliament. When I


forced a Division on that, the Secretary of State for Health and each member of his ministerial team went into the Aye Lobby to give themselves an £80 a week rise in 1988, £30 a week rise in 1989 and a £50 a week rise from next January —an increase of £160 in 24 months. That is more than the take-home starting salary of an ambulance man for a whole week. If that is not hypocrisy, I do not know what it is. The Secretary of State for Health has the security of getting £1,000 a week, yet he demands that other workers take pay cuts.
Whatever arguments are adduced by the Secretary of State and his health team, or by Duncan Nichol, the general manager of the NHS, that there is no compatibility between the jobs of those in the emergency services of ambulance, fire and police, on previous occasions, I have given the House personal examples of such occurrences in Coventry. Consider what is said by those in the front line. Ambulance man Peter Cole reported about Deal:
All the emergency services—ambulance, fire and police —dug together in the rubble knowing there might be another bomb.
Ambulance man of the year, Malcolm Woollard, reported from Brighton:
We were at the scene of the explosion where a whole hotel floor collapsed minutes after we dragged the bodies clear.
The Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the present Secretary of State for Energy should hang their heads in shame for having the temerity to say "Thank you" to the ambulance workers five years ago in Brighton, and then treat them like dirt now over their pay claim. The Prime Minister was happy to chase ambulances and praise workers for their efforts at Clapham and King's Cross, yet now she is prepared to treat them in a despicable manner.
There is now a lock-out in many regions, including the Coventry area. Yet it is interesting that it was not the Army which was asked to provide ambulances for the State Opening of Parliament. It seems that the Army is not capable of looking after Members. There were two paramedic training officers from the Woolwich ambulance station in a Woolwich ambulance station ambulance on standby here on 21 November. Why was that? That arrangement was made because of the incapability of Army medics, with a couple of days' refresher training, with police escorts and assistants, to provide anything like the service that is given by the professionally trained ambulance personnel.
I shall give some examples. I have a form which was completed by a professional ambulance person on 22 November as a result of an incident that took place in NW9. A one-and-a-half-year-old child—I shall not give the child's name because that might be a breach of confidentiality—was badly scalded. Under the section headed "Nature of illness" there is the following entry:
Patient found lying on bed, with wet burn to chest and neck area (9–14 per cent.) approx.
Under "Ambulance aid rendered" there appears:
1 × No. 3 bandage with sterile water applied to burn area. Baby carried in arms to ambulance in burns sheet.
We are then told that the mother accompanied the baby in the ambulance. There is the driver's name and the attendant's name. There are the exact times when the ambulance was called, when it left, when it arrived at the hospital, when it left the hospital and when it returned to the station. There are numerous pieces of other information. This enables a hospital accurately to treat a patient.
The adjoining postal district is NW10. I have a form which relates to an incident that took place on 29 November. There is the time of the call, which was 20.21. The time of arrival at the scene was 20.35, so the response to the call took 14 minutes. There are the times when the ambulance left the scene and when it arrived at the hospital. The patient's name is supplied, but there is no address. The injury suffered is described as "Head injury". The entry against "Treatment given" is "None". There is no other information supplied on the police ambulance report.
I have a second police ambulance report of an incident that took place on 10 December. There is the date, the time of call, the time when the ambulance left the scene and the patient's name. The incident again took place in the NW10 area. Under "Injury suffered" there is the entry "High temperature". The treatment given is described as QT102. That is the call sign of the officer who attended the call. What use is that information to an accident and emergency department at the hospital to which the patient is taken?
I have another form which does not state where the patients is from. Against the section marked "Remarks" there is written "Collapsed". How can people in London or elsewhere have any confidence in that sort of information? That is one reason why we need the dedicated emergency staff of the ambulance service.
What is the effect of using inadequately trained personnel with inadequate equipment in their vehicles to provide a substitute service, be they from the Army, the police or voluntary services such as the St. John Ambulance Service or the Red Cross? In normal circumstances, I have the greatest respect for workers who, after a day's work, give their services to the St. John Ambulance Service or the Red Cross. They are not, however, bringing this dispute to a close. They are being used as strike breakers and they are prolonging the dispute.
Did the Minister listen to the "PM" programme at about 5.40 pm on 15 December? Did he listen to Dr. David Williams, the senior consultant across the water at St. Thomas's hospital, who claimed that the number of patients now arriving dead at the hospital, or who died at the accident and emergency department at his one hospital during the time that the Army have been used in London, from 7 November to 13 December, had increased by 70 per cent. over the equivalent period for each of the previous three years? Dr. Williams is no insubstantial commentator. He is the president of the Casualty Surgeons Association. When he says that there is a substantial increase at one hospital, we can believe that throughout London and in other parts of the country there have been unnecessary deaths because of the Government's attempt to crack the resolve of ambulance workers.

Mr. John Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because of the latest disgraceful policy of preventing ambulance crews from responding to emergency calls, the lives of thousands of seriously ill citizens are being put at risk every day? Was not my hon. Friend present when ambulance crews belatedly received a call to assist Mr. John Downes, a senior citizen who lived at 170 Almond Tree avenue in my constituency? Does he agree that Ministers and senior ambulance administrators are guilty of a most heinous crime by preventing ambulance crews from responding to emergency calls?
Did not that inhumane policy deny Mr. Downes urgent medical attention for 59 minutes? Unfortunately, even with the skilled attention of the ambulance crew, who responded to the call within three minutes, he died in hospital. I know that the House will join me in offering sympathy to the bereaved family, but does that not pose this question? Would Ministers and senior administrators prevent their wives, children and parents from having urgent—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a long intervention.

Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend refers to a serious recent tragedy. I join him in offering sympathy to Mr. Downes's family.
I was at the Foleshill ambulance station in Coventry on Sunday visiting ambulance workers who, because of the actions of management—I know that they are "only obeying orders"—are having to provide a service without the normal telephone lines. At 12 o'clock, the doctor telephoned 999. At 12.56—an Army ambulance had not arrived 56 minutes later—he telephoned the special council hot line connected to the ambulance station in Coventry and asked for help for his patient, who had been unconscious for an hour. Within three minutes, an ambulance arrived at the patient's house. He was taken immediately to hospital and given oxygen treatment. The Army ambulance arrived at 1.45 pm—one hour 45 minutes after the call was made, despite the fact that it is only three or four miles from Woodend to the police station in the centre of Coventry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) said, tragically, Mr. Downes died on Monday.
I am not medically qualified to judge whether the one hour that Mr. Downes had to wait unconscious for the Army ambulance was the sole cause of his death, but I can say without fear of contradiction that if he had had a proper ambulance three minutes after the doctor had called, and if the Army and police had not been on the streets of Coventry, he would have had a better chance of life.

Mr. Bruce George: I visited the ambulance station in Walsall. Experienced crews were waiting for 999 calls, but they were being diverted to the Army and police. All telephone lines to the station had been cut off. The ultimate insult was that insurance had been withdrawn from ambulance men. Is there not a degree of malevolence in that? If anyone dies as a result of it, does my hon. Friend appreciate, as I do, that the finger of suspicion and guilt will clearly be pointed at the Government?

Mr. Nellist: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Telephone lines to ambulance stations throughout the west midlands and Coventry have been cut. That applies not only to the control rooms but even to the coin-operated boxes in the locker rooms and social clubs. What will happen if there is a fire? What will happen if ambulance crews want to phone out to the emergency services? It will be impossible.
In the past seven years, I have had one or two harsh things to say about the Labour-controlled council in Coventry. But within hours of the phone lines being cut in

Coventry, my Labour-controlled council installed a special hotline to the city engineers building on the other side of the road from the ambulance station. It also made a room available for the stewards and advertised in the local paper and on the radio the special hotline number —Coventry 832208—which has allowed the people of Coventry to call the ambulance service directly.
In Birmingham, such lines have been cut; the depths are being plumbed there. Racal has given the Birmingham ambulance service Motorola phones, a base station and three radio sets. At least the ambulance crews could then cover the centre of Birmingham. Over the weekend, 30 life-saving missions were carried out.
That has now stopped, because on Monday the regional general manager of the regional health authority, Mr. K. F. Bales, who was "only following orders", issued a letter to all ambulance personnel. I have a faxed copy of that letter which will probably be sent out to crews in Coventry today—Thursday 21 December. He wrote:
Management therefore had no other alternative other than to determine that 999 and emergency calls should be directed only to the Army, Police or Voluntary services and certain Professional Staff … It is, therefore, my responsibility to point out to you that if you carry any patients in an ambulance when not authorised by the Authority or use an ambulance for any other purpose, you may be liable to the following:—

1. Prosecution for driving a vehicle that is unisured—section 143 Road Traffic Act 1988.
2. Prosecution for driving a vehicle without road tax—section 8 Vehicle Excise Act 1971.
3. Using a vehicle without the owners consent. Both driver and any passengers"—

that is the patient, remember—
may be prosecuted under section 12 Theft Act 1968.
Can anyone imagine a more craven or worse example of moral blackmail on the ambulance workers in Birmingham and elsewhere—to try to make ambulance workers choose between saving a life and prosecution?
I have had some research carried out into the claims in that letter. I am not sure whether prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 1988 for driving an uninsured vehicle can be enforced by the Government. From my reading of the regulations and of the consolidated measure, it seems that the argument that anyone driving an ambulance outside the rules governing a particular ambulance authority or contrary to management instruction, rests on the assumption that such use would not be
in accordance with the terms in which it is so made available.
I happen to think that ambulances are there to save lives. It would be interesting to test in a court of law whether an ambulance is the personal plaything of a regional health authority manager, a Minister or a Secretary of State for Health, or whether it is public property intended to save lives.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend has been outlining the impediments placed before voluntary ambulance crews fulfilling an act of skilled mercy. Is it not appropriate that, when the Minister replies, he should tell us the extent to which the impediments—whether they be telephones or insurance or any other threat—have been created on the instructions of Mr. Duncan Nichol or the Minister or with their connivance? If so, the direct link between risk to life and Government instruction will have been made. If no such instructions have been given, is it not time that the Government said that such instructions should not be issued?

Mr. Nellist: I believe that my hon. Friend's alternative of direct connivance is right.
Four or five weeks ago, there was a similar example of moral blackmail in London. The acting chief ambulance officer, Mr. Tom Crosby, issued a letter to all 71 ambulance stations in London. I raised that matter at 3.30 pm on 14 November, in the presence of the Secretary of State for Health, in an application for an emergency debate. One hour later, the Secretary of State went to a press conference, withdrew that instruction and, according to The Independent of 15 November
had not 'contemplated launching into the area of prosecution.'
The Government have had four or five weeks to consider the withdrawal of the initial introduction of that letter into London. The fact that it went out on Monday —nearly 60 hours ago—in Birmingham, leads me to the conclusion that it has been checked all the way up the tree to the Secretary of State, and that political permission has been given to the regional health authority to remove the professional crews from the streets of Birmingham, and possibly Coventry tomorrow, by the threat of criminal prosecution if they drive ambulances. It can be described only as moral blackmail. Such an escalation of the dispute can be done only on the political authority of the Secretary of State. The Government are using the sickness of old folk and bairns as a political weapon to try to beat a group of workers into submission.
I do not exaggerate very often—hon. Members may not think that that is the case—but I can now see little difference in moral terms between the Government's tactics in the ambulance dispute and the Stalinist leadership in Romania. There may be a difference in scale or degree between thousands of deaths by bayonet and, so far, only dozens of deaths by denial of facilities, but the same tactic is being used to try to beat a group of working people into submission by the use of physical force. The Minister will not break the resolve of ambulance crews by those tactics. He will not cut the umbilical cord by which they are linked to overwhelming public support, which was evidenced last week when my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston attempted to present a petition signed by 4·5 million people.
We know that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds are daily being collected from working people in the streets of this country. If the dispute is not settled within days—I do not know why I should be warning the Government and giving them advice; perhaps I should direct my remarks to those who will read my speech rather than to Ministers who never listen to Opposition Members—there will be even greater pressure, such as that evidenced on 6 December when 5,000 workers took industrial action in London, or in Bedford or Manchester today, when other workers will support the ambulance workers.
I have watched worker after worker put a day's pay into the ambulance workers' collection boxes. It will only take someone with a little more clout than I—perhaps someone on or even leading the general council of the TUC—to ask all workers in this country to give up a day's pay on the same day and have a national day of action, such as a 24-hour stoppage, to defend ambulance workers and the NHS. If 500,000 people can demonstrate in Wenceslaus square, we can certainly put 500,000 in Trafalgar square in support of the ambulance workers and the NHS.
No Socialist or trade unionist is asking ambulance workers to go on strike, but the pressure is building up inside their ranks for an escalation of action. Our folk would be denied an essential service if the ambulance workers went out on a lengthy strike. It is not their job alone to defend their wages and conditions and the service that they provide. Our job, as working people who rely on the service, is to go to their aid. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with them, and I remain convinced that working people will do so.
That support for the ambulance workers is widespread is evidenced by a letter that was faxed to the Secretary of State today by the Coventry city council, stating:
The City Council is amazed at the deliberate acts of provocation which ambulance management here are taking, presumably with your knowledge and consent, that can only serve to escalate friction and deepen the dispute.
Army ambulances, supported by Police, are already on the streets of Coventry. They are no substitute for the trained professional ambulance service which the public has the right to expect.
We would be failing in our duty to our citizens if we did not demand that the Government immediately ceases what appears to be a clear policy of escalating confrontation, and instead concentrates every effort on resolving the dispute.
In those sentiments, my Labour council represents the overwhelming majority view of the 300,000 citizens of Coventry and, I am sure, of working people throughout the country.
I say through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Minister, if he will listen, and to anyone else who may read or hear of this debate that the ambulance workers of Britain—all 22,500 of them—will not be bullied into submission. Every time they are kicked in the teeth, they are brought closer together. They have learnt the true meaning of solidarity, of relying on each other and of the generosity of ordinary folk with the 50ps and £5s from pensioners and the bigger donations from better-paid workers.
I heard one ambulance worker from Liverpool say about a month ago that he wanted only two things out of the dispute—an 11 per cent. pay offer and a tobacco pouch made from Duncan Nichol's scrotum. I cannot deliver the second item, but I advise the Minister that those workers will win their just desserts. They will not be deserted by the working men and women of this country.
The Government will rue the day when they took on a section of the emergency services in an attempt to crack their union and in an attempt to bring in the privatisation and sale of the service of taking people to hospital, or to bring in the opt-out and the two-tier structure. They will rue the day they began this course, because ambulance workers will stick together and working people will back them. They will get their pay award.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has mentioned Mr. Duncan Nichol. One of the less pleasing aspects of this sad affair is the extent to which people who are, in effect, civil servants are being put up by Ministers to protect them. I have asked a few questions about this practice. The Minister may wish to correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that this trend has been instituted in the National Health Service. I question whether it is right and proper for the political decision of Ministers to be produced on television or at a press conference by a senior civil servant who is not responsible


for the policy. We should look into this trend as a Parliament. Perhaps the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service might wish to turn its attention to this matter.
This is the fifth debate on ambulance services since 1986. Up to 1987, we had four on the London ambulance service alone, which has been in crisis for the past four years. Indeed, in the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund on 8 December 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and I outlined the serious condition of the London ambulance service and warned the Minister what would happen. In earlier debates that Minister, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), boasted of a 40 per cent. cut in non-emergency calls, apparently completely unaware of the human suffering and distress that that caused three summers ago.
The London ambulance service, which is the biggest municipal service in the world, has been starved of money. It is clear that it has not been demand-led. Whether an ambulance service is taking people to hospitals or clinics or providing an emergency service, it must be demand-led. The excuse that the then junior Minister made was that the cuts in the non-emergency service, which were reprehensible and wrong, were being made to keep the front-line services up to scratch. However, since then the front-line services have not been kept up to scratch. There has been a so-called efficiency saving every year. The funding arrangements between the Department of Health, formerly the DHSS, and the extremely awkward South West Thames regional health authority and its London ambulance board, which has wrongly remained anonymous throughout this terrible time, is murky in the extreme. It is clear that that service, its executives and senior officers have to cut their coat according to inadequate cloth.
The Government do not seem to understand that the ambulance service must be demand-led. They have provided it with less money and fewer resources than it needs. The result has been a running down of the service, especially in respect of human skills.
The Government do not appear to understand that capital is more than cash. Let us take the example of this House. It shows the importance of experience, of building up skills over a number of years, of dealing with problems and of passing on that experience to new Members. That is what happens in the ambulance service. Skills and experience are acquired as people face more difficult porblems. Those skilled people should be retained, but that does not happen.
I quoted the relevant figures during our debate under Standing Order No. 20, and I shall quote them again. The total number in the London ambulance service is 2,379. In the two years 1987 to 1989, no fewer than 572 people left the service. Some 166 people retired, but of that number 148 had to leave on medical grounds. Only 18 people in two years retired at the normal retiring age. The pressures on the crews—psychological, physical and financial—were and are too great. Coupled with that is maladministration of the service on a grand and terrible scale.
The Government were warned four times, and they are now reaping the whirlwind. The Minister, who has been listening intently, will, I am sure, do his best to reply to the

debate. However, in view of the importance of the matter, it would have been more appropriate if the Secretary of State had appeared. This is no ordinary debate; it is no ordinary industrial dispute. If we believe in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, we must also believe in the accountability of those who take the decisions. I do not think that the Minister is in that category. Indeed, perhaps the Secretary of State is not in that category. We can guess where some of the decisions are made.
These events are following a now familiar pattern. We have only to think about the public services that have been handled so badly during the past five years or more. First, they have been under-funded, then under-equipped and then morale has been undermined through the introduction of new systems of grading and pay. Such actions provoke some form of industrial dispute, patience gives out, the service declines, and someone says, "We must privatise the service to make it efficient."
One of the most terrible aspects of the dispute is the leaked information that the Government intend to privatise the major part of the ambulance service—the so-called non-emergency service. That process has been applied to our railways, our teachers—who do not even have a negotiating machinery—our nurses, our midwives, and our doctors; and, dare I mention it, the Government have even tangled with the lawyers. The process is worthy of old Nick himself; it is satanic because it removes trust, confidence, skill and all those abstract qualities that make up the quality of life. In referring to old Nick, I do not specifically mean the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, although he is more than capable of thinking out a sequence that has, alas, been so effective.
The problem is that the Government and all who sail in it have no concept of public service. It is a concept which was to be found within the Conservative party with which I grew up. I disagreed with it about the extent to which service and matters of commerce, production and exchange should be publicly owned, but we could have a reasonable argument about it. The Victorians built many of our town halls. The Victorian heritage in many of our cities is enormous. Many of the Victorians were Conservatives. The old style Conservatives at least said, "If it is to be public, let us make it good." I have no doubt that Grantham public library was very good. At least certain people wanted it to be better than it was.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pity that they did not read more in it.

Mr. Spearing: Indeed, there is a great lack of understanding in that respect and a great deal of ignorance, particularly about the non-emergency ambulance service, which it is the Government's intention to privatise. If they have changed their mind, I should be glad if the Minister will tell us when he replies.
A circular has gone out from the South West Thames regional health authority under the terms of the White Paper. One would not have thought from the White Paper that the Government were going to privatise the non-emergency ambulance service. However, its broad terminology covers that.
I talked about ignorance, which is massive in Whitehall and in the Government. My ambulance crews in Plaistow have hit it on the nail. They have said, "The non-emergency service requires a great deal of skill and effort. A high proportion of those we take to hospital or


clinics are elderly, frail, ill—by definition—and probably frightened. They are worried, in particular, about how they will get home." In addition, the skills required to get them out of bed and their home into the so-called non-emergency ambulance—perhaps fitted with a tail lift if there are enough available—are not always easy. Imagine getting a 15-stone man out of a bedroom and down narrow stairs. In too many tower blocks in Newham, the lifts sometimes do not work.
What about the lady with the frame who shuffles down the garden path and is then guided on to the platform which raises her into the ambulance? What about people who need stretchers? The so-called front-line ambulances are used at times to take people for treatment who need to be moved lying flat on a stretcher. The Government do not understand the skill and risk lifting people. It is done by many who work in hospitals, and it is a difficult and skilled operation, particularly if the people they lift suffer from distressful conditions or have dressings which must be treated with care.
By cutting the non-emergency service three or four years ago by 40 per cent., the Government and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South caused enormous distress. Many people have been taken to hospital and have not been able to get home. Sometimes they have called minicabs and have not arrived home until 1 o'clock in the morning.
The number of ambulances has not been increased. We all know about hospital closures and the need to travel further. We all know about transfers from one hospital to another. We all know about traffic conditions, particularly in London. All those factors put a greater demand on ambulance mileage and crew time. Crews and vehicles have not been increased pro rata.
What does the Secretary for Health say? He reminds me of Marie Antoinette. He says, "Let them use taxis." He has no knowledge of the service. If he had, he would not say what he says.
The Government say that we should have choice. As a citizen, I want the choice to pay taxes to stop people having to take taxis. The Government will not allow me to exercise that choice. They apply choice, as a philosophy, in a highly selective manner. While I am talking about manners, I make no apology for making some comments about the Secretary of State. I expected him to be here tonight.

Mr. Corbyn: He should be.

Mr. Spearing: I have no compuction about saying things in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's absence.
On 7 November, the right hon. and learned Gentleman accused ambulance crews in London of "pretending" to be available for service. On 24 October, I asked him to check his allegations about the use of radio. Time and again he implied or stated that the crews would not use the radio, but, later, he had to admit that they were using them in a particular manner. The arguments are difficult to follow, but it is accepted that it is important that radio contact should be maintained. It was. The Secretary of State used phrases to suggest that that was not so. It is, of course, the last refuge of political scoundrels to use what my hon. Friend the former Member for Bow and Poplar, Mr. Ian Mikardo, aptly described as
verbal veritas sed suggestio falsi".

In other words, they use true words from which false impressions and false conclusions can be drawn by the listener.
The Secretary of State has behaved in a boorish, rude and overbearing manner. He has questioned people's motives, and his manner has often been officiously offensive. Such behaviour is unbecoming and unacceptable from a Secretary of State and a member of the Cabinet.
The Secretary of State is a Queen's counsel, a professional. A professional is someone who is paid an adequate return for his services and then gives what is required. We try to do that here. It is the wish of ambulance crews throughout the country to do just that. One cannot undertake a time-and-motion study or a productivity study on ambulance crews and the Secretary of State, as a professional in the law, should know that. In my view, his behaviour is reminiscent of those who have been at the other sort of bar rather than at the legal one. I say that with some reluctance in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's absence, but anyone who has observed his behaviour here and elsewhere would say that it is broadly correct. I would go as far as saying that, now, he is one of the most disliked men in the country.
At root, the problem is a philosophical or a theological one. The ambulance crews and their equipment are corporate Samaritans. In that way they act on our behalf. I should have thought that even the Prime Minister would agree with that. I recall her comments on that parable. "Ah," she said, "the good Samaritan had to have the money to pay the innkeeper first." She forgot that, when the Samaritan went to the innkeeper, he gave him some money, but said, "If the needs of this man are greater, I shall come back later and pay you what I owe." In other words, his actions were demand-led; that is one of the important lessons from that parable. The Prime Minister claims that she understands such things.
In 1988 the right hon. Lady went to Scotland for the annual assembly of the Church of Scotland. She read them what has become known as "The epistle to the Caledonians." She claimed that our civilisation and many of our cherished traditions had a Judaeo-Christian basis. I do not detect any such basis in the way that the Government are handling this matter. Are not those principles of Judaeo-Christianity which the Prime Minister professes to hold made literally incarnate by the ambulance service? I shall not go further, or I shall be tempted to preach a sermon, and I finished doing that many years ago. The money is available—there is a £12,000 million surplus. The Government have at least £130,000 million which they have conned from people by selling them their own property. Therefore, there is no lack of resources for this matter.
Such questionable political morality would have been almost unbelievable 10 years ago. The Government must test their conduct in this matter against some of their professed principles. There is need for conciliation. The Government will not go to ACAS, because in doing so they will be seen to be climbing down. I have said some harsh things about the Secretary of State tonight. I have known him for a long time, and underneath that somewhat bullish exterior there are many redeeming features. It is not beyond his ingenuity to think of some method whereby something could happen so that both he and the Prime Minister could get off the hook and do something to bring this terrible, sad dispute to an end.
When the history books are written, this dispute will be featured as part of the demise of what, in this decade, we have called Thatcherism.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I start by declaring two interests in this dispute. First, I am proud to be a member of the National Union of Public Employees and to be sponsored by in this House. Most of the ambulance workers who are in dispute and have been so abominably treated by the Government are members of my organisation. Secondly, I live, and am happy to live, in London and am concerned about the future of emergency services there and the very safety of residents.
The dispute has shown who are concerned about ordinary people's safety and who are not. Ambulance workers who undertake a workers-controlled and workers-run 999 service have shown that they have at heart a concern for the ordinary people throughout the country. Those who are not concerned are those who have brought in the Army and the police, and heaped abuse on ambulance workers in an attempt to break their resolve and end the dispute so that they settle for the poverty pay to which they have long been accustomed.
It is disgraceful that the Secrertary of State is not here. He makes the decisions and the running, and appears on television all the time. He abuses the ambulance workers, but now he cannot be bothered to be here tonight to answer to the House. My hon. Friends' speeches have also shown the type of work that ambulance staff do and the pressures they fare.
Can people understand the pressures of trying to drive through London traffic, deal with an emergency such as picking up elderly people or people from car, train or air crashes and then go straight back out on the road? I was talking to a group of ambulance workers in an ambulance station about this. I compared their experiences to those of rail workers. If a train driver faces a fatal accident in which a passenger or, more likely, someone else steps onto the track and commits suicide in front of him, he is righty counselled afterwards. They are given considerable leave to try to get over the shock and trauma, and given whatever support is available.
I talked to a group of ambulance drivers who had spent two hours trying to help people get out from under a train crash. They had to spend the last half hour of a man's life talking to him because it was impossible to get him out. When they had finished that task, and the crash had been cleared up, they went straight out on other emergency calls. Ambulance workers suffer such trauma and tension all the time, yet they are told by the Secretary of State that they are no better than unskilled taxi drivers. These are the people who deal with care and concern with every patient —the drunk picked up off the pavement on a Saturday night and the child in a road accident are treated with equal compassion.
Continual abuse is heaped on the ambulance workers. It used not to be heaped on them when they were not complaining about their low wages—everything was fine then. As soon as they said that they were not prepared to accept such low wages, all that changed. Something must be done about low wages, however; they are one of the major causes of the problem.
Young ambulance workers in London, which I know best, have to travel enormous distances to get to work. Unless they are very high priority, virtually homeless people, they have no chance of council accommodation anywhere in inner or central London. No ambulance worker could buy a flat there on the wages he is paid. The minimum price of a small flat in the area is £60,000, so they live further and further away, or in bad and overcrowded conditions.
If we want to maintain decent public services in London, the housing problem must be resolved, and public servants such as ambulance workers, who do such a valuable job, must be given reasonable rates of pay.
On Thursday 14 December, I asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to list the pay of leading firemen and police constables for each year since 1974. I asked for the answers in 1989 prices, but he said that that was impossible—the calculation was obviously beyond the Home Office. In 1974, leading firemen and women were paid £2,913 a year; by 1980 that had risen to £6,715, and by 1989, to £14,055. Police constables in the corresponding periods were paid in the range of £1,632 to £2,636, £4,956 to £7,848 and £9,900 to £16,521. The equivalent salaries for ambulance workers were: basic pay of £1,981, £3,994—and what the Secretary of State for Health describes as a final offer of £11,001.
This shows where the money has gone—not to the ambulance workers, who have clearly lost out. The police, fire and ambulance services all attend major accidents, but is a policeman worth twice as much as an ambulance worker? Is a fireman worth more? Ambulance workers are valuable members of a team and should be paid properly for the job.
The background to the dispute is one of continual underpayment and the continual imposition of new management methods. There has been continual cutting back on the service, a continual use of hospital cars and a continual threat of privatisation. People who take pride in their jobs could use their skills to fulfil that pride, but they are prevented from doing so by sharp-suited management brought in to introduce the methods of the supermarket to the service. That is not the proper way to run an emergency service. The right way is to use people's skills and dedication properly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr Spearing) pointed out in a debate at this time of morning two years ago, London's heavy traffic was, as now, slowing response times, and there was also a major lack of vehicles. They remain significant factors.
When the ambulance workers refused the latest pay offer, there was widespead consternation, with the management aghast that the workers should dare to decline it. The ambulance men took a democratic decision, and ever since they have conducted their dispute with enormous dignity.
Every morning, at ambulance stations all over London, and in many other parts of the country, ambulance men arrive to work a shift. They receive a phone call asking whether they are willing to work according to the management's demands—and when they refuse, they are stood down.
The management know perfectly well that the ambulance men will not leave their stations but will remain to respond to emergencies—as they have already done hundreds of times. Had they not done so, many people


would have received no attention because the Army and police are incapable of doing the job. They do not want to do it, and they are not qualified to do it.
The Secretary of State for Health is happy to rely on the good will of the ambulance station staff to undertake 999 duties, even when they have been stood down.
One morning when I was talking to workers at a Fulham ambulance station, a police car drew up outside and a nervous young constable got out and asked, "Are there any ambulance workers here?"—which was a pretty stupid question, as it was fairly obvious that there were, in uniform. The constable said, "We have a problem because we have been told to pick up someone with a back injury and do not know how to lift him." That policeman did the right thing in coming to the people qualified to deal with that situation. The ambulance workers' immediate response was to go to the scene of the accident and do what was necessary.
Last night. I was with a group of Camden ambulance workers, who described how they came across the crew of an Army ambulance picking up someone off the street who was in a bad state and vomiting. The crew laid the man out flat on a stretcher, where he could have choked. Fortunately, qualified ambulance workers happened to be at the scene and put the patient into the proper recovery position—then explained to the soldiers how to look after anyone they found in similar circumstances.
On a wet and miserable night, I was walking home along Stroud Green road in my own constituency when I saw an Army ambulance and two soldiers trying to carry someone out of a house on a stretcher, while the driver was scrutinising an "A to Z" by the dim light of a torch, trying to locate the nearest hospital. Is that a proper service? Is that safe? Is that the way that the public should be treated in this day and age? No.
The public know that the ambulance workers are on the public's side, which is why they are donating so much money to them. A month ago, the Secretary of State for Health told me that I was one of the few people in the country who supported the ambulance workers' pay claim —but last Friday, a petition of 4.5 million signatures was presented to the House, and goodness knows how many people have shown their support for the ambulance men by putting money into their buckets.
I have with me a list of the telephone numbers for all the ambulance stations around London, which are now providing a 999 service. They are well publicised, so the public can phone for a real ambulance when they need one, rather than suffer a lengthy wait for a police or Army ambulance.
There is popular support for the ambulance workers because the public realise that the Government are hellbent on destroying them with abuse. They recognise which side the abmulance workers are on: they recognise that those workers have shown their dedication to the community, the service and the people who rely on that service. That is why the ambulance men have received such enormous support throughout the country, and throughout industry and the service sector.
Every march that I have joined starts off with a few hundred participants, but grows and grows until a mass of people are showing their determination to support the ambulance workers. The Government will rue the day that they took them on, for I believe that the time will come very soon when they will be forced to settle the claim in full.

Mr. Robin Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on securing the debate, and on the vigorous and forceful way in which he introduced this important topic.
All my hon. Friends who have spoken so far have referred to the absence of the Secretary of State, and I shall not echo their observations; I shall content myself with saying that I am pleased that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is to reply, as I have always found him more thoughtful and candid than his right hon. and learned Friend. This is the first opportunity that he has had to comment on the ambulance dispute, and I look forward to hearing, when he rises in 10 minutes' time, his answer to a question that is, I think, at the back of the minds not only of hon Members who are present tonight, but of the whole nation: what is the Government's present strategy to secure a settlement?
The more often we listen to Ministers discussing how they think the dispute will be resolved, the clearer it becomes that they believe that the only solution is for the union side to surrender. The Secretary of State made it plain that there was no room for any meaningful negotiations on a new offer, because there would never be any more money on the table: he is willing to meet the unions—or, rather, for his management to meet them—only to accept their sword in surrender.
The problem with seeing that as the end of the dispute is that, to put it bluntly, the staff side and its members are in no mood to surrender. Any doubt about that was removed this afternoon, when the Association of Professional Ambulance Personal revealed the result of its ballot following negotiations with the Secretary of State's nominees—phantom negotiations with a phantom union, but negotiations that none the less produced a real and resounding no. The offer was rejected by 68 per cent. to 32 per cent.—a pretty convincing two-to-one majority.

Mr. Corbyn: Close!

Mr. Cook: Of course, it probably was much closer than it would have been had the ballot been held before the many hundreds of resignations took place. What we were left with was a two-to-one rejection by the rump that did not resign when the negotiations started.
If the Secretary of State really believes that the dispute will be resolved only by the surrender of the union side, he will have to wait a long time; in the meantime, the people who will suffer are the members of the public who have cause to call on the ambulance service. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate immediately before the seven days round Christmas and the subsequent seven round the new year, which are the busiest days of the year for the ambulance men. It is customary for the London service to receive 300 calls per hour over Christmas and the new year; at present, 50 police vehicles and 50 Army vehicles are available to them. How can they hope to deal with 300 calls per hour with such resources?
Not only must the ambulance men rely on such rudimentary resources, but, regrettably, the management appear to have done everything possible to frustrate the efforts of the staff side to maintain an emergency service even while suspended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East and one or two of his colleagues from the midlands have drawn attention to—we should be quite blunt about it—


acts of sabotage to destroy the telephone links to ambulance stations. There is no other adequate description. It was vandalism intended to sabotage attempts to provide emergency cover. There have been similar attempts to prevent the London ambulance service from receiving emergency calls that people want to put through to it.
Last Friday, my attention was drawn to what happened outside a private hospital, as it happened, in central London. The staff at that clinic were aware, as all the public in London were aware, that ambulance staff had taken the trouble to advertise the direct lines of their stations and were welcoming calls made on those numbers. Outside the private clinic, a window cleaner fell three floors to the ground below. He fractured his spine, a leg, his forearm, his pelvis and his ribs. The staff of the private clinic attempted to make a 999 call and were told to wait in the queue. They summoned two policemen from nearby and asked them for the number of the nearest ambulance station so that they could dial direct. The police officers advised the staff that they were under instructions on the highest authority not to release those numbers.
Is this the policy of the Government and the management side? If so, they are deliberately setting out to frustrate the service that could be available to the public when they have access to a police officer, who may frequently be on the scene of an accident and who would be able to summon skilled professional help. I do not think that it fair to force police officers to say, "No, we are not allowed to divulge this information." It took two hours and 10 minutes for an Army ambulance to attend to that patient, who was in great pain and had serious orthopaedic injuries. When it arrived, the people driving it were incapable of performing the skilled and proper lifting of the patient. That is serious because the improper lifting of a patient with a broken spine could result in paralysis for life.
The nation wants to hear the Government's strategy for resolving the dispute, and must increasingly view their intransigence with incomprehension. I shall give just two reasons for that. The first concerns the cost of maintaining the best professional ambulance service that we can hope to have. Three weeks ago, the Association of London Authorities produced figures which show that, in the first three weeks of the dispute, the additional cost of police cover was £1·25 million. Another three weeks have passed, so we can double that figure. The police vehicles alone have cost £2£5 million. There are also the Army vehicles, so we can double the £2.5 million. The additional cost of emergency cover in London for the past six weeks is therefore £5 million—all to avoid a settlement that would cost only £10 million. The Government have spent almost as much on providing emergency cover as they would need to settle the dispute.
The second reason why the public must regard the Government's stance with incomprehension is the political cost to the Government. The Minister, who is a sensitive and thoughtful man, must be aware of that. The truth is that the ambulance staff have received overwhelming support. My hon. Friend referred to the petition presented to the House on Friday. It is the largest petition ever presented to the House. I understand that 5 million signatures have been collected—including those presented

last week and those collected since then. Every week, support for the ambulance staff grows, while support for the Government's case becomes weaker.
Ministers may be concerned about the political damage that they will suffer if they are seen to be defeated, but that will be as nothing compared with the political damage that will be caused to the Government if they are seen to defeat and humiliate the ambulance staff.
This is not the place to negotiate the dispute. I would not expect the Minister to attempt to negotiate the dispute and announce a settlement tonight, but I urge him and the Secretary of State to get round the table and negotiate directly with the ambulance staff, not through intermediaries who have no room for manoeuvre. If the Secretary of State continues to refuse to do that, the nation is likely to conclude that the Government are not interested in resolving the dispute but wish to play it through to the bitter end. I believe that that is a dereliction of their duty for which the nation will not forgive them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr Spearing) gave me quite an introduction when he said that he regretted the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State as he thought that the Minister who was to reply to the debate was too junior to take any decisions. I shall try to answer some of the points that have been made and I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that even the most junior Minister at the Department of Health shares responsibility with his Secretary of State for resolving such problems.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that in any industrial dispute it is important to avoid humiliation. Cool heads and patience are needed on both sides to resolve what is essentially an industrial dispute. It is unfortunate that in this case, unlike many other industrial disputes, the people who are suffering are the patients. They are people like the hon. Gentleman and myself. That is why it is particularly important for cool heads to prevail in encouraging further constructive discussion between the two sides.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) said that no ambulance man or woman was on strike. He said that they had been locked out. On reflection, he will have to agree that the trade unions involved in the dispute promised to maintain emergency services throughout the country. That was a clear commitment.

Mr. Corbyn: That is what they are doing.

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who intervened from a sedentary position, reflects further, he will recall that that was not and is not the case in London. Some men and women in the London ambulance service have not agreed to operate normal radio procedures.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: No. I wish to finish the point I was making. I have some 11 minutes to answer the points made in the debate.

Mr. Corbyn: Name one station.

Mr. Freeman: Let me explain what I mean. When an ambulance service is provided for a region or a metropolis, it needs to be properly co-ordinated and run. An ambulance service cannot be run by individual crews from individual stations. It has to be properly co-ordinated, and it needs a control room with management who can use flexibly the crews at disposal.
Where that is not the case—where normal radio contact is not being operated and ambulance men and women are not prepared to work with qualified ambulance men and women from other stations—the service breaks down. Outside London, some crews in some places have taken patients requiring emergency treatment not to the right hospital but to the nearest accident and emergency department—not to where they were directed but where they wished to take the patient.
In that situation, the normal emergency service breaks down. It cannot be controlled properly from a central location and one has anarchy, in the organisational sense that individual ambulance crews may be willing to operate a service as they define it, but it is not properly run and co-ordinated.
That is what an emergency service is, and in certain parts of the country it is not being offered. That is why the police, Army and voluntary organisations are providing that emergency service. I regret it, but that is the position.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East also asked about the pay formula; by inference he wished the ambulance men and women, the unions, to have a pay formula linked to the fire fighters, and presumably to the fifth-year fire fighters. That was rejected by Clegg, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, and I have not heard the hon. Member for Livingston commit a future Labour Government to a pay formula that would link ambulance men and women to fire fighters.

Mr. Cook: I am happy to take this opportunity to make it clear that we have said, and are on record as saying, that we would accept the case for a mechanism which would provide for guaranteed annual increases for the ambulance service along the same lines as was resolved in the fire fighters' dispute. Whether that would provide a precise link with fifth-year firemen or with something else is a matter on which we have an open mind and about which we would wish to negotiate when we are in the Minister's position. But there is no doubt about our commitment to a mechanism, and I am sure that were the present Government to make the same commitment, the dispute could be resolved in time for Christmas.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will admit that that is not quite pay comparability using the fire fighters or the police as comparators. The hon. Gentleman spoke about some form of mechanism, but he did not commit a future Labour Government to the request of the unions involved for strict pay comparability through some kind of formula with the fire fighters.
The hon. Member for Newham, South said that the ambulance service was demand-led. The hon. Member for Livingstone, I am sure, accepts that the hospital and community health services are—and have been since the Labour Government of 1976—cash-limited, and that the pay and other operating costs of the ambulance service would be cash-limited in the sense that they would be funded from that part of the Vote which was cash-limited.
Hence, the argument of the hon. Member for Newham, South is not consistent with the position that the hon. Member for Livingston has taken and would be likely to take if he were responsible for the Health Service. It cannot be financed as a demand-led service such as unemployment benefit or the prescription of drugs by the family practitioner service. It is cash-limited because it is part of the hospital and community health services and a judgment must be made about the relative priorities within the Vote.
The hon. Member for Newham, South asked about privatisation. The Government have made no comment about policy towards privatising all or part of the ambulance service. But I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Northumberland service. I think that he will agree that, where the non-emergency portion of the service there is provided by a private company under contract, it appears to work satisfactorily. I am not aware of any criticisms being advanced tonight about that service. There is a similar service in another district in England.

Mr. Spearing: Leaving aside the non-emergency service, surely the emergency service must be demand-led. The Orcon standards have been set by the Department and sufficient vehicles and personnel must be provided so that those standards are implemented. The same applies to the fire-fighting service.
The Minister has talked about privatisation. Is he telling us that what might work in largely rural Northumberland might be applicable to London? I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not denying that there are moves towards privatisation. South West Thames regional health authority has already sent out circulars, and he knows that it has done so on the basis of the White Paper.

Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Health Service is not managed by the Department of Health. It is managed by—

Mr. Spearing: Mr. Nichol.

Mr. Freeman: No. It is managed by individual constituent units of the National Health Service. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.
The hon. Member for Livingston asked about the Government's strategy. In the few minutes that remain for this debate, I shall deal briefly with the pay offer that is on the table and our strategy. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the offer made by Mr. Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the NHS management executive. The offer has been rejected so far. The offer that emergency crews will be on full pay if they work to trade union guidelines over Christmas has been rejected.
It is said that there has been no new offer, so what is the strategy? The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have moved significantly on pay since the 6·5 per cent. offer, which was accepted buy NUPE during the summer. It was agreed to by NUPE negotiatiors for 150,000 NHS staff and subsequently rejected by their members. Since the negotiations in the summer, there has been a significant movement by the Government and none in recent months by Mr. Poole, who is still asking, as I understand it, for 11 per cent. and a pay formula.
The improved pay offer, which is on the table, would increase rates of pay from 1 April 1989 by between 9 per cent. and 16·3 per cent. with an extra £500 for paramedics.


It includes an agreement to negotiate by 28 February a national framework for paying the intermediate paramedics. These are the main elements of the improved offer. Other elements include the consolidation of standby allowances into one rate, a joint review of the 1986 salary structure in the light of three years' experience of its operation and new London pay rates, which would give increases of between 10·9 per cent. and 16·3 per cent, resulting in increases in overtime rates of over 22 per cent.
The hon. Member for Livingston concluded by referring to public attitudes. I have to agree with him—I have seen this in my constituency and I am sure that other hon. Members have seen it in theirs—that the British public value the ambulance service. They regard it, rightly, as I do, as posssibly a lifeline when someone is struck down and there is an emergency, or when someone has to move as an out-patient from one part of the hospital service to another.
I understand the public's attitude, but the Government have a responsibility. It is important that no NHS pay group is negotiated with on such different terms from others that they disadvantage other parts of the service. We employ 1 million people in the Health Service and it is important to remember that the majority of the staff have already settled for this year. The exceptions are the ambulance men and women.
I agree with the hon. Member for Livingston—I am trying to be constructive—that humiliation is an important consideration. The way to settle the dispute is not to put the ambulance men in a humiliating position but to get them back round the table, to negotiate properly and to do what we all want—care for patients properly.

Welsh Economy

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: May I say what a pleasure it is to have you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair, albeit at 3.29 am?
I am reminded of a fairly recent political event in the United States that appeared on C Span, the channel that covers Congress. After the session had finished, a member carried on speaking to the empty house. He berated his opponents and asked why there was no reply from them. Tip O'Neill, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, was so enraged that he demanded that the cameras should pan the empty chamber to show that the member was speaking to himself. Four hon. Members are present to debate the economy of Wales.
I welcomed the chance to debate the past 10 years because the Government have an excellent story to tell. Let us remember the situation in 1979. The coal, iron and steel and tinplate industries in Wales were heavily dependent on Government subsidy and were all chronically inefficent. The steel strike in 1980 led to a marked and dramatic reduction in employees in the industry. Within a short time, Llanwern, with half the labour force, stopped making a loss and doubled its production.
As a result of the Scargill strike of 1984—85, there was a dramatic reduction in the number of pits in Wales. However, they were not quite as dramatic as the reductions made under the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The coal and steel industries in Wales have emerged from the recession fitter, leaner and profitable, and now produce at a price that the consumer is prepared to pay.
We have seen an end to one of the problems that has beset Wales over the past 100 years—dependence on two or three basic industries, which meant that in the past it was very prone to structural unemployment.
Those days have passed, and now the Welsh economy is broadly based. It has diversified into many industries and is confident and strong. It will be able to face up to whatever is thrown at it in the future. Although we have experienced much hardship in Wales over the past 10 years, we have passed the worst by a long way and we are seeing considerable improvements throughout its economy.
We shall hear from the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), whom I am pleased to describe as a friend outside the House, the usual Labour party gloom-and-doom speech about everything that is wrong with the economy. Before he speaks, it is worth remembering what some of his predecessors on the Labour Front Bench have said. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr Marek) said:
The Government have massaged the figures. True unemployment is well over 4 million and may be approaching 5 million."—[0fficial Report, 28 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 165.]
The then hon. Member for Carmarthen, who spoke for the Labour party on Welsh matters, said:
registered unemployment is expected to stay at 3 million well into the last quarter of this decade, the pace of growth for this year falls to just over half of that during the previous year." —[Official Report, 3 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 102.]
In fact, the pace of growth increased that year and in the succeeding year.
Having not learnt anything from that wrong prediction in 1986, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said:


There is no doubt that the Government have been massaging the unemployment figures downwards over successive months."—[Official Report, 2 March 1987; Vol. III, c. 612.]
When summing up the Welsh day debate, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), quoting the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), said:
The Goverment were clearly reconciled to the fact that mass unemployment in Wales would continue for years."—[Official Report, 2 March 1987; Vol. III, c. 673.]
We know exactly what happened to unemployment in Wales. As those hon. Members were speaking, it was falling, and it has continued to do so for 42 consecutive months. The current figure is 6·9 per cent. of the working population in Wales—the lowest level since July 1980.
There has been a considerable increase in the number of people employed in the Welsh economy. There has also been a larger increase in Wales than anywhere else in the United Kingdom in the number of people who have "got on their bikes", to quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and become self-employed. Those people are responsible for the increase in investment and business in Wales.
When I was elected in 1987, unemployment in my constituency was 7,381. A year later, it had fallen to 6,232. When 1 spoke in the Welsh day debate in the House at the beginning of this year, the unemployment figure for my constituency was 4,899. The latest figures—issued only last week by the Welsh Office—show that unemployment in my constituency has fallen to 3,366. It has more than halved in the two and a half years that I have had the honour to represent the constituency. Although I can claim no credit for that fall, I am proud to have supported the Government, who have encouraged that fall and enabled it to happen. Although the figures are still far too high, I recognise that the Government have the right policies to ensure that unemployment continues to fall over succeeding years.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, leading for the Opposition, said in 1984:
Well before the end of the century I should like to see a reconstituted economy in Wales. I should like to see Wales regenerate and modernise her industries, diversify her economic base, and become successful and banish large scale unemployment.
I am sure that all hon. Members would say, "Hear, hear," to that. That is this Government's policy. As soon as Labour Members face a difficult challenge—pit closures or steel closures—they forget their grand words.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, in that same debate, said:
The closure of any pit in Wales, certainly in the south-east Wales coalfield, will wipe out the gains of new industry in the south Wales economy."—[Official Report, 28 February 1984; vol. 55, c. 168–9.]
In 1987, the hon. Member for Newport, East quoted the Western Mail, and said:
Wales' economic future continues to look as bleak as a derelict coal mine or an abandoned steelworks."—[Official Report, 2 March 1987; vol. 111, c. 672.]
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, earlier this year in the Welsh day debate, when challenged about his policy, said:
On these Benches we say no to a free market."—[Official Report 1 March 1989; Vol. 148; c.309]
It is no use the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside saying that he wants a reconstituted economy and, when the difficult decisions have to be taken and pits have to be closed and when new industries have to be encouraged,

turn his face against the free market. It is the free market which has helped Wales over the past few years to revitalise.
The free market has been assisted by the Government. A former Member for Pembroke and Secretary of State for Wales, now Lord Crickhowell, started the process in 1979, and it has been continued and expanded by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
The figures for regional assistance in 1987 show a promise of 28,000 new jobs. In 1988, the figure was 32,200 new jobs. To October this year, the figure had increased by 15,200 new jobs. In 1979–80 to 1989–90, the urban programme has meant more than £203·5 million for Wales, and that has safegurded and created 37,000 jobs. Urban development grants since 1982 have led to £37 million of grant, and investment of £173 million.
The Government have been active in encouraging existing and new businesses to take advantage of the opportunites created by the transformed Welsh economy. In 1988–89, the level of assistance to Welsh industry was increased by 39 per cent.—an extra £54 million –over the prevous plans, taking the total figure to £194 million, and a further increase to £212 million has been taking place during the present financial year.
The Welsh Development Agency has been part of the focus for the Government's programme and for ensuring that their policies are spearheaded. It was created in 1966, but only under this Government and in the past few years the WDA has taken on a major role in transforming the economy of Wales. It has adopted new efficient business principles for its own operation and it has been out into the marketplace to attract new business.
In 1987–88, nearly 2·5 million sq ft of floor space was let. That is equivalent to 7,000 new jobs. In 1988–89, there were 2·4 million sq ft of lettings, leading to more than 7,000 jobs and the budget for this year is another £130 million, which is 15 per cent. more than even last year. Total WDA investment in factory building in 1988–89 was £20 million, and it is expected to be £66 million over the three years of the programme. That is even more than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State forecast when he set up the programme.
The WDA has been at the forefront of ensuring that the Welsh economy should be improved. It is encouraging that at its head is a dynamic young chairman, Dr. Gwyn Jones, who is leading the way and has been out to get new business in other parts of the United Kingdom and, even more important, from abroad. In his chairman's statement in the annual report for this year, he said:
The Wales for the 1990s will be a dynamic country. `Dynamism' is an unusual attribute to apply to a country, but the current level of activity in the Welsh economy makes it particularly apt.
How different that is from what the chairman of the WDA said in the final year of the Labour Government:
In a year in which the United Kingdom continued to be beset by economic problems, the work of the WDA, as a body concerned with stimulating industrial expansion, was inevitably constrained.
That was said in 1979, the last year in which the Labour party was in power. Now we see what has been achieved by the WDA.
The present chairman's statement continues:
The success that Wales has achieved in continuing to attract inward investment is quite remarkable, and WINvest has played its full part in this. We consistently gain some 20 per cent. of all the inward investment that comes to the UK


whilst we have only 5 per cent. of the population. Such names as Ford with its £275 million investment—a record for the automotive industry in the UK".
It goes on to refer to Bluebird Toys, Star Micronics, the financial services initiative, NPI and Rothschilds.
Any Government would be proud of that record of achievement, but the work does not end there. WINvest is continuing under its new name to go out and look for new investment. In the current year, 98 projects were announced, with a capital investment of £1·12 billion and the possibility of nearly 14,000 more jobs.
Why is Wales attracting all that investment? We have a Government who believe in business. President Coolidge said:
The business of America is business",
and the business of this Government is to get business. It is certainly not to run it, and they have been determined not to do that. They have been creating the climate of opportunity which has enabled business to grow and expand in Wales.
As members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the hon. Member for Torfaen and I remember a quotation from our first report which was published in 1988£89. In its report on inward investment into Wales and its interaction with regional EEC policies issued in February of this year, the Select Committee said:
We were told they concentrated upon 'the entire business package"'—
talking of overseas companies—
encompassing the size and growth of the UK market and the ease of access to Europe from Britain, political and economic stability, the large size and rapid growth of the UK market, labour issues, (high productivity, relatively low costs, good industrial relations), a favourable tax regime, financial incentives, the welcome by government and the regions, the living environment and English as 'the international business language'.
Many of those qualifications would not be available under a Labour Government. We certainly would not have a favourable tax regime, good industrial relations, or economic stability. As a result of the climate which the Government have created, inward investment has increased at a tremendous rate. In 1988, Wales attracted 22 per cent. of all jobs in the United Kingdom which came from foreign investment. About 250 foreign-owned companies in Wales have created about 48,000 jobs.
It is rather ironic that, when the country has been investing heavily abroad to the benefit of our balance of payments, some people are opposed to foreign investment doing the same in this country and creating work. We live in an interdependent world economy, so how much better that each of us should have a stake in each other's economies and so make the prospect of war less likely. It is time that some of the little Britons who have argued in the past against foreign investment changed their policy. Since 1983, about £2 billion of inward investment has been secured—and at a steadily increasing rate.
Wales is now a first-class location for the financial as well as the industrial sector. The TSB Trust is embarking on a multi-million pound office development in Newport, and 500 jobs will come as National Provident Institution enlarges its Cardiff operation.
As I have said, this change could only have been brought about by a Government who believe in business and who have created the right climate. Part of the Government's role in the past 10 years has been to ensure

that the infrastructure—or as we normal people tend to call it, the roads and railways—has been improved to allow better communications. In Wales, the Government have undertaken 47 major motorway and trunk road schemes; 140 miles of roads have been provided.
Spending on new capital schemes of structural renewal and maintenance has exceeded £1 billion since 1979. Sixteen bypasses have been completed; four are in place and 25 more are programmed for the 1990s; and 16 miles of road are presently under construction, costing £270 million.
Perhaps the most remarkable development at the moment is the Conwy tunnel and the associated works on the A55. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is keen on that. I recently went to speak in Bangor and drove there at 4 o'clock in the morning. I have to admit that I was astonished to see such a road cutting right across north Wales. Indeed, I had to cut my estimate of my arrival time by about 45 minutes as a result of travelling for the first time on the modernised A55. I only hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind the pleas to uprate the A477 that I made to him in an Adjournment debate earlier in the year. We should like a similar road to go to west Wales.
Not only have we seen an improvement in the infrastructure; we have also seen an improvement in our tax regime. When the Government came to power, we had punitive tax rates, which have now all been reduced. We have also seen a proactive role in those areas where both Government money and private money have been necessary.
Perhaps the best example of that has been the valleys programme—a programme for the people—which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in June 1988. Not only has my right hon. Friend launched the valleys programme, but we now have the north Wales initiative and exciting developments throughout Wales, such as the Cardiff bay scheme, the Newport barrage, and the Swansea marina. Wherever one goes in Wales, one sees a Wales that is growing, modernising and improving.
I am proud that this Government should have been the Government who got Wales moving at last towards the 21st century. Part of that achievement has been because the Government have also recognised that Governments can do only a limited amount and that it is important that we encourage business by creating the right climate. The Government themselves are not the right force to choose the winners. The Government are not capable of running business. Business is too important to be left to Governments. It should be run by business men. The Government's attitude under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has certainly paid off.
Before considering the future, I turn to two sectors of business that are of particular concern to my constituents. The first is agriculture. Representing as I do a rural constituency in west Wales, I am most concerned to see an improvement in the agricultural industry. I use the word "industry" deliberately because we often forget that we are talking about business men, people who have to make a profit and try to generate growth.
In the past few years, there has been a dramatic fall in farm incomes. There have been both major bankruptcies and smaller bankruptcies among family farms. I hope that the worst is over. It certainly looks as though it is in the dairy industry in west Wales.
I should be wrong not to mention my two major concerns for farmers in this debate on the economy. The first relates to interest rates. It is no use denying that interest rates hurt a lot. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "If they are not hurting, it isn't working." I only hope that we shall turn the corner very soon and be able to reduce interest rates, because I fear that, if we do not balance the economy properly, we shall end up with the economy in recession. We are all looking to my right hon. Friend to ensure that that fine tuning and balance is maintained.
The second issue is that of the green pound. Earlier this year, the green pound was moving towards parity, but marked gaps have now appeared. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take note of a recent letter from the president of the National Farmers Union, Simon Gourlay. There is a clear and pressing need to tackle the green pound gap during the next few months.
The other industry in my constituency, apart from light engineering, is tourism, in which also a major transformation has taken place. Until a dozen years ago, tourism in Wales was hidebound. The market had disappeared to Spain, Portugal and the Italian riviera. At last, there has been a major change in the industry. It has had to recognise that the days of the day tripper and the two weeks beside the seaside are over. Instead, there has been a massive growth in the second and third holiday market of two or three days. That is partly because of the increase in prosperity, but also as a result of the changing demands of clients as they wish to see more of their own country as well as touring abroad.
What do the tourists want? First—in parts of Wales this is very important—they want proper wet weather facilities. That is not something about which the tourist industry, until recently, has been concerned. It is no use providing third-rate tatty entertainment, because today's customer is used to high-quality entertainment and leisure facilities. Anyone who produces only third-rate facilities will soon go out of business. They want variety; they want, when visiting Wales, not to be told that there is only one attraction on offer. They want to see a range of attractions, covering not only good scenery and history but entertainment and other forms of leisure. They want to stay in good hotels.
I welcome the fact that in recent years it has been a deliberate policy of the Wales tourist board to improve the quality of the hotel accommodation. If we do not improve that quality, we will lose the customers. It is important, especially in my part of the world that relies so much on tourism, that we should be aware of the importace of providing value for money and good quality accommodation.
That is why I welcome the LEAD initiative of the Wales tourist board and the fact that Wales still has section 4 grants, unlike the remainder of the United Kingdom. As a result of an announcement earlier this year and in co-operation with the South Pembrokeshire district council, a £1 million project has begun in Tenby. The total value, with the £1 million from the Wales tourist board, will be £14 million. That is the sort of pump priming and local assistance of which I approve. It allows local authorities to put taxpayers' money where their mouths are, with private finance, and the Government to give a shove with a grant from the Wales tourist board.
It will be important to consider how we will tackle the problems that lie ahead. Governments can prime the pump

and create the conditions, but at the end of the day it will be for business to make the decisions and to use its judgment.
The Government have done a tremendous amount for the people of Wales in ensuring that business has the right climate. We have deregulated in all sorts of spheres. We have taken Government off the backs of industry and business. We have reformed the trade unions so that there is a new air of realism. When members of the Welsh Select Committee went to Japan last year, we found that labour relations were placed high on the agenda as a good quality of the work force in Wales.
We have reduced inflation from its 28 per cent. level under the Labour Government. It is still far too high, but this Government put at the top of their agenda the priority of getting it down. We have increased competition; we have encouraged inward investment; we have reduced Government spending; we are paying off the national debt. We no longer have a public sector borrowing requirement, that we had for so many years. We are tackling inflation in a way that ensures that the economy continues to prosper without going into recession.
Business has its role to play. It must remember that it must produce at the right price and quality and produce the goods on time if it wants to stay in business and compete with the rest of the world.
I am optimistic that we are witnessing a revitalisation of the economy of Wales. We have a good story to tell over the past decade, and under this Government it will continue. However, I am worried about what would happen if the party of the hon. Member for Torfaen came to power.
The hon. Member is a moderate, reasonable and intelligent man. He must wince sometimes when he sees the contradictory promises that are made by his hon. Friends. He will have to answer four crucial questions if he is to have credibility. How do Labour plan to control inflation? How many taxpayers will lose out under Labour's tax plans? How much does Labour want to add to public spending and where will the money come from? How will Labour create an environment in which British business has the confidence to create wealth and jobs?
My constituents want to know the answer to those four crucial questions. The hon. Member for Torfaen will have to answer them is he is to have any chance of convincing the electorate at the next election. I fear that he will have a slim chance. Already we have seen massive contradictions from the Labour party. We have had the ring of honesty from the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about credit controls. When asked about them by the Press Association in June 1989, he said:
There is no way you can control credit except by controlling the price of credit and the price of credit is the Bank Rate.
He described the Labour party's policy as "rubbish".
On the question of home owners and mortgages, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)—who has been moved to greener pastures where he is less likely to put his foot in it—has argued for mortgage controls which could affect young couples on the bottom of the mortgage ladder and couples who plan to trade up, by making it difficult for people to move on to their second home.
In "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" the Labour party argued for several new taxes. The hon. Member for Torfaen could perhaps tell us a lttle more about them.


Perhaps he could tell us about the new tax, which will probably be set at 9 per cent., on investment income in excess of £3,000, or £5,000 for pensioners.
The Labour party would force all new businesses to pay a new training tax, which will be set at 0·5 per cent. of all payroll costs. The tax bill of, for example, British Airways, would increase by £5 million, enough to employ another 200 staff.
The Labour party plan to abolish the national insurance upper earnings limit, which would add another 9 per cent. to the marginal rates of all those earning £16,900 or more. It plans to phase out the married man's tax allowance, which is currently worth £1,590 a year. It also plans to increase the top rate of income tax. It has promised that it will be only 50 per cent. We cannot believe that when we listen to the promises of the Labour party in every Budget debate since 1987. It constantly advocates strike action in support of pay rises yet votes against reducing the workers' tax bill at every opportunity and in every Budget. That is a strange contradiction. In spite of all its new glossy policies and packaging, it still has not learned that it must cost its programme to ensure that it obtains value for money and that the taxpayer is not penally taxed out of existence.
I finish with a quotation from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). It sums up what many Conservative Members think about the Labour party's economic policies and what they might do for Wales. He said in The Guardian of 2 October 1989:
We have to say now what we are going to spend and where the money is going to come from.
That is the challenge facing the hon. Member for Torfaen. If he wants to convince the people of Wales that he would run the economy better than the Government, he had better answer those questions.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Having a debate on this important subject at 4 am hardly does justice to the subject or to Wales. The fact that only four hon. Members are present out of the 38 who represent Wales is a reflection on the time rather than a lack of interest in the subject. This underlines the need for more prime time for important Welsh debates. Is this an adequate way for Wales to be governed?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on securing this debate, although I should have congratulated him more warmly if he had secured it at a sensible time, but I know that that is well outside his control.
It will not be any surprise to the hon. Gentleman to learn that I disagree with his highly subjective and selective analysis of the Welsh economy. I am tempted to suggest that his contribution tonight is the first draft of his election speech for the next general election. I suspect a hint of desperation in what he said tonight. He cannot fool all the people all the time and the people of Pembroke, in common with the rest of the Welsh people, will know that reality in Wales is more mixed than the hon. Gentleman suggested.
There are some areas where the signs are hopeful and suggest that things are going in the right direction. No one would play down those successes but, my goodness, we still have enormous problems to overcome. We must

quantify those problems and develop an action programme to overcome them. The hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to the work that is done by the Welsh Development Agency. I realise that he was not in the House when his colleagues voted against its establishment. I am only glad that it still survives.
Those of us who try to describe the Welsh economy are in danger of being caught in a Catch 22. If we refer to the blacker aspects of our economy we are accused of talking Wales down—the last thing that we want to do. But if we ignore those blacker aspects, we are not addressing ourselves to the serious problems, nor are we setting the right agenda.
We welcome the successes, particularly the inward overseas investment from which Wales has done notably well. Unfortunately, not all Welsh areas have benefited as much as others, and I hope that the investment spread will be more even in the future.
We debate the Welsh economy against the background of massive structural changes. It is incredible to think that in 1925 250,000 people were employed in the coal mining industry—one in three of the working population. Now, fewer than 10,000 people are employed in coal mining. Any economy that has faced such change will inevitably have had difficulties. The question is whether we have succeeded in establishing in Wales a new, alternative economic and industrial base to face the next century, or whether we still have a great deal to do.
There is an enormous challenge. We should pitch our targets to compare with the most successful countries. We should not say that, because things were even worse a few years ago, they must be good now. The unemployment rate in Switzerland is 0.5 per cent., in Sweden it is 1.5 per cent., in Luxembourg it is 1.3 per cent. and in Norway it is 5 per cent. Those unemployment levels make us realise that we still have a long way to go. In the United Kingdom in the south-east unemployment is 2.1 per cent. in Berkshire, 2.2 per cent. in Buckinghamshire and 1.7 per cent. in West Sussex. We should pitch similar unemployment targets in Wales.
Unemployment in Wales is falling and that is welcome, but merely adjusting the base in which that number is calculated does not overcome the problem for the unemployed. Yet another base is now being used that can knock between 1 and 2 per cent. off the recorded number. I accept that any Government would want to dress up the figures as best they can, but that is not good enough.
The truth about unemployment in Wales is recorded in the December 1989 Employment Gazette. In my constituency, Pwllheli has the highest unemployment of any travel-to-work area in Wales at 14·3 per cent. In Aberdare unemployment is 13·4 per cent., in Holyhead it is 12·7 per cent., in Cardigan it is 11·4 per cent., in Bangor and Caernarfon it is 11 per cent., and in South Pembrokeshire it is 10·4 per cent. Those problems are scattered across Wales, not concentrated in one corner. In the north-west, the south-west and the old industrial valleys of the south-east we see the same problems of persistent, residual unemployment which is not going away. We have an awful lot of work to do if we are to overcome them.
I sympathise with the Minister at having to stay awake at this time of night. The time has surely come now, with some of the successes—which we welcome—to reconsider the way in which the assisted area map for Wales is drawn. The difference between the intermediate areas and the


development areas has almost disappeared—8 per cent. for the intermediate areas and 8·9 per cent. for the development areas. Some development areas have lower unemployment rates than some intermediate ones. It is high time to look at that matter again.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) painted a rosy picture of the position as it has developed in his home area. Looking through my pile of cuttings I find that it was only last year, in 1988, that the Western Mail carried a story entitled "Wales's jobless capital". It starts:
Pembroke is the jobless capital of Wales.
It continues:
In that area of south Pembrokeshire District there is a total population of 1,637, of whom 524 are registered as out of work.
I accept that those figures will have decreased since that report was drawn up. Nonetheless, there has been a serious problem in south Pembrokeshire and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to ignore or contradict that.
Not long ago I saw a report in which the EC pinpointed the decline, decay and neglect in Wales. The report drew out the fact that between May 1981 and 1987, more than 22,000 factory jobs had disappeared in south Wales and only 6,000 new ones had been created. We welcome the 6,000 new ones, but the loss of 22,000 has hit many communities hard. It was reported at the same time that 152 manufacturing firms had opened in south Wales, about which we hear a lot. However, at the same time 250 manufacturing firms closed. There is a credit side and there are successes, but set against those are the victims. People have suffered as a result of the Government's free-for-all economic policies which have hit some manufacturing companies particularly hard.
My former company, Hoover in Merthyr Tydfil, is an example of a company that has suffered. About 470 jobs were lost, according to a Financial Times report of only a couple of months ago. The total number working there now is less than 2,000 compared with 5,500 working there when I left in 1974. I realise that some of those jobs losses are due to automation but many are caused by the difficulty, in the present economic climate, for such companies to attack the marketplace. Interest rates have a critical effect on companies making manufactured goods such as washing machines.
Only a couple of months ago, there was a shock in Gwynedd, in the Minister's constituency, when it was announced that 100 jobs were to be lost in the Austin Taylor company which deals with telecommunications equipment. That meant that 100 out of the 450 work force in the Bangor area would lose jobs.
These are serious losses and we cannot paint a rosy picture of the Government's economic policy when that very policy leads to such a crisis. Only this October, the Liverpool Daily Post had a large headline,
Gloominess infecting all of industry.
It referred to the way in which the Confederation of British Industry was reacting to the then Chancellor's economic policies.
The CBI's report on quarterly trends in Wales makes bleak reading. We should counterbalance what the hon. Member for Pembroke said. I accept that there are many good points, but we should counterbalance them. The report starts:
Business confidence has fallen … There has been a marked decline in total new orders and manufacturing output with further falls expected during the next four months…

Investment intentions have weakened … Employment in Welsh manufacturing industry has fallen for the first time since October 1986 and a further decline is expected into the fourth quarter of 1989.
Those are not Plaid Cymru comments: they are CBI comments. What is causing this? The Government should deal with the problem.
Only 5 per cent. of the companies surveyed were more optimistic than four months before; 44 per cent. were less optimistic. So there is a serious decline in the confidence of industry, and it is hitting Welsh industry just as it is hitting the prospects of other areas.
Between 1980 and 1987 total production in Wales increased by 2·1 per cent., but total production in the UK generally increased by 12·6 per cent. Although we started from a lower base, our success has been less than that of other parts of the country. That shows how far we have to go.
The most recent issue of "Welsh Economic Review" contains disturbing information about the formation of new firms. Three of the eight Welsh counties are in the bottom sector—between 54 and 63 in the ranking throughout the UK. Regrettably, they include Dyfed, the county of the hon. Member for Pembroke, and my county of Gwynedd. I am sure that we should both like our counties to be at the top of the league table, not the bottom. That, too, underlines how far we have to go. Much more work needs to be done.
What effect has this had on the people? Gross domestic product in Wales per head of population was 86·9 per cent. of that of the rest of the country in 1977. Ten years later, it had fallen to 82·4 per cent. As a result, personal disposable income fell from 94 per cent. of the United Kingdom average in 1977, to 90·6 per cent. in 1985, to 87·4 per cent. in 1986, and to 86·2 per cent. in 1987—a persistent decline. There may be reasons for that, but the success about which we heard from the hon. Member for Pembroke has not worked through to the spending power of the people of Wales.
As the hon. Member for Pembroke rightly said, tourism offers a substantial amount of new employment, but the problem in our areas is that so much of the work is seasonal. We need year-round work. There are ways of overcoming the problem, but immense injections of cash are needed to develop facilities that are attractive all year round. I welcome Butlin's announcement of a £20 million investment in my constituency to meet this challenge, but if tourism is to become the base of the economy, it will need tremendous investment. I sometimes wonder whether we can base our economy in some parts of Wales only on tourism. It has a part to play, but it must be alongside a strong manufacturing sector.
One problem in areas such as mine is housing. House prices in our part of Wales, as in other areas of the United Kingdom, have risen so far that it is extremely difficult for young people to buy houses. Available rental stock has declined—we discussed that earlier today in the Welsh Office—and that means that waiting lists for houses have increased incredibly. In Arfon borough the figure rose from 800 to 1,400 in two years, and I know that other areas have similar problems.
Agriculture, the base of the Welsh economy in so many areas, is going through a time of considerable uncertainty and insecurity. If interest rates remain high, the effect on rural areas will be serious. The Welsh Development Agency must act, not just to bring work to the M4 corridor


in the south and to the north-east of Wales—to areas of potential growth such as Clywd and Deeside—but to areas beyond such as Pembrokeshire and Gwynedd. The WDA, for understandable reasons, has not yet succeeded in doing enough in that respect.
An effort must also be made to reduce high interest rates, which are caning not only individual families with mortgages but small businesses, which will not invest further until rates are at a more acceptable level. Many projects are simply not viable at present rates of interest.
If a successful economy is to be built up in the 1990s and into the next millennium, an attempt must be made to improve the skills of the young in Wales, and that poses a challenge to the schools and colleges. The infrastructure must also be improved. As hon. Members have said, the A55 will have a major effect on north Wales. We want to ensure that it is a positive effect, enabling the creation of new manufacturing and employment opportunities, and that it does not simply serve people who want to travel across the border to buy goods, at the expense of local shopkeepers.
The railway to south Wales should also be improved, and the line from Crewe to Holyhead electrified. That would help to secure the basis of Wales's infrastructure. Down the years, there has also been the challenge of encouraging more enterprise among the young people of Wales, as the figures that I quoted earlier on the number of new firms being created amply testify.
The challenge of 1992 is also before us. If Wales is to meet that challenge, it must develop greater dynamics than it has at present. I hope that things are moving in the right direction. In Gwynedd and in many other parts of Wales, the proof of the pudding has yet to appear—and it must do soon if Wales is to be ready and fit in 1992 to meet the challenge of Europe. It is in that context that we must take a balanced view of the Welsh economy—and against that background, build for the future.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I echo the sentiments expressed by all hon. Members about the timing of this debate. Given that the responsibilities of Welsh Office Ministers and of shadow Cabinet spokesmen do not extend to the British economy as a whole, I shall not accept the challenge of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) to comment on the economy generally. However, I shall be happy to do so when the next general election is drawing much closer, and I shall repeat my performance of some months ago at Pembroke Dock, when I addressed much wider issues than those before the House today.
Much of what has been said by the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Pembroke is welcome. If one removes the beginning and the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke, and then extracts much of what he said in the middle, I would find little with which to disagree. On inward investment, for example, all would agree that the inward investment made in the Principality over the past few years has been good for the areas concerned. Whenever the Welsh Grand Committee has investigated that aspect over the past year or so, its members have commented that Wales has done better than other regions in Britain. No one would be churlish enough to deny that that is the case.
Similarly, I accept the comments of the hon. Member for Pembroke about tourism. A considerable improvement must be made in the way tourism is developed in the Principality and elsewhere in Britain. On other matters, however, there is not so much agreement—although I concur with the hon. Member for Caernarfon that a balanced view must be taken of the Welsh economy, which must be set against a number of other factors.
We must remember also that there are major differences within the Principality. Wales cannot be considered as a single economic unit. There are major distinctions to be drawn between north and south Wales, between rural and urban areas, and between the tops of the valley areas and the valleys which border the M4. There are great pockets of unemployment and deprivation, which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe are not being tackled adequately by the Government.
Perhaps the most accurate of all the indicators is the view taken by the people of Wales themselves of the Government's economic record in the Principality. Over the past three or four years, the people of Wales have said, with overwhelming conviction, that Conservative government is not working. Their inability to deal with the Welsh economy lost the Conservatives a seat in Wales that they had held for a quarter of a century or more, and reduced the party to a rump in the Principality. The Conservatives' fortunes are worsening, not simply because of the national situation, but because of what the Welsh people think about the Welsh Conservative party and about the Conservative Government's performance in Wales.
I accept wholeheatedly that unemployment has fallen, but in my view we must look at the figures relating to people in work as well as those relating to the unemployed. In Wales today, 118,000 fewer people are employed than were employed a decade ago. That is a remarkable statistic, and the sort of statistic that the Welsh people consider when they judge the Government's record.
Unemployment in Wales is 45 per cent. higher than it was in 1979. It has fallen, yes, but it has fallen less than it has in Yorkshire and Humberside, the east midlands, the south-west, the west midlands, the south-east and East Anglia, and it is still the fourth highest in the regions of Britain. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon pointed out, there are pockets in Wales where unemployment is even worse, such as Pwllheli—perhaps one of the worst black spots in the country—Cardigan, Holyhead and, of course, South Pembrokeshire, as well as parts of my constituency.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) mentioned self-employment. Wales has experienced the lowest increase in self-employment in Britain; since 1979 it has increased by 18 per cent., compared with 103 per cent. in the south-west of England. That is a pretty poor record. At the same time, there has been a considerable increase in the number of part-time workers, especially women. While some of those jobs are decently paid, many are poorly paid and provide little job security and unsatisfactory working conditions.
The coal industry had its problems all those years ago, and no one is suggesting a return to the worst aspects—the loss of life, and the other problems that men encountered when they worked in the pits. I come from a mining family and a mining constituency, but I am the first to acknowledge that I should prefer people to go into jobs that did not involve such risks. But in Gwent and in Monmouthshire—once a great coal-mining centre—not one pit remains, and this year we have seen the last of our


pits at Oakdale, Marine colliery and Cwm Ebbw Vale. They have closed, with the loss of hundreds of jobs. Jobs in coal and steel were difficult, but they paid well and provided young men with good opportunities. Now, in many instances, they have been replaced by jobs which are poorly paid by comparison, as well as being part-time or temporary, often non-unionised and generally unwelcome to the people of Wales.
We must also remember that many of the unemployment figures have been fiddled. People put into training schemes have been taken off the unemployment registers, bringing the numbers down; but we in Wales know in our heart of hearts that people are still out of work, particularly young people. Investment in manufacturing industry has declined by some 56 per cent. since 1979, and Government assistance to Welsh industry has been cut by 51 per cent. since that year.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Pembroke refer in glowing terms to the Welsh Development Agency, and to its first-class chairman, whom I knew many years ago at ICL. He was right to say that a Labour Government set it up, although he qualified that later. It was the Welsh equivalent of the National Enterprise Board.
The Conservative Government were more than willing to let the Welsh Development Agency stay, but I believe that the high rents that it sometimes charges in parts of Wales ought to be changed because they make business men in south Wales and elsewhere suffer. The regional development grants have gone. Their automaticity has disappeared. Although I welcome the fact that selective grants remain, some companies are suffering because they relied on the regional development assistance that had existed for a long time.
I also believe that the Government have under-valued the work of local authorities, particularly district councils. I hope that the Minister will comment on their excellent work in industrial development.
In any analysis of the economy, we must consider what people are paid in Wales. The Welsh are at the botton of the British earnings league table. Between 1987 and 1988, average earnings in Wales increased by 7·1 per cent., which was the lowest increase in Britain. The north of England came next, with an 8·6 per cent. increase. In 1988, the average white collar worker in Wales earned £13,200 a year. In the City of London, the figure was twice that. According to a recent jobcentre survey in south Wales, only 9 per cent. of the jobs available offered wages of more than £135 a week and 12 per cent. offered only £80 per week to people prepared to accept such a ridiculously low wage. One in five women in full-time work earn less than £100 a week, and one in four men earn less than £150 a week. If we are examining the economy, we must consider wages, and in Wales they are among the lowest in Great Britain.
The Minister has responsibility for infrastrucure. I agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke that it is an appalling word, but we both know what it means. We have already had one debate about the Severn bridge, but since then things have got worse. Tolls have doubled and the problems of getting across have intensified the nearer we come to Christmas. I hope that lifeline will be improved.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon mentioned north Wales. We all welcome the A55 and what it has done for the economy of the north. I am sure that much will be said about it in the Welsh Grand Committee debate after Christmas. In the south, the M4 comes to a pretty awful

grinding halt when it approaches Port Talbot. Something must be done about the gap between Port Talbot and Swansea in Baglan. The problems in south-west Wales will get worse, unless that important lifeline between the rest of Wales and England and London is improved substantially by improving the M4 and closing the gap in the Baglan area.
The business rate is looming ahead of us. It has been universally condemned by the business community in Britain, especially in Wales. It has been condemned by the Confederation of British Industry, the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses and others who represent all manner of industry and business in Wales. There is a valid reason for their opposition. The revaluation, which I assume will happen at the turn of the year, will represent an increase of eight times. We already know from a statement made in a written answer that the rate poundage for businesses in Wales will be 38p, which is 2p higher than in England.
When we put those facts together, we know that at least 70,000 of the 100,000 business properties in Wales will be worse off as a direct result of the introduction of the business rate in the Principality on 1 April next year. Many of those will be small businesses which are the lifeline of business communites in many of our smaller towns in rural areas and in the south Wales valleys. Ironically it will also hit many of our business parks and high-tech industries on the M4 corridor. Those are the last industries that we want to be knocked heavily by that tax, but unfortunately that will be the case. I hope that there is still time for the Government to rethink some of their policies with regard to the business rate in Wales as I believe that its effect on business life in Wales could be calamitous.
I conclude by welcoming the opportunity to discuss such an important matter. Like the hon. Member for Caernarfon I hope that we shall have a better opportunity to discuss it later in the Session when more right hon. and hon. Members are present. I hope that the Minister will consider setting up a Welsh economic development council, as has been urged upon him by the Welsh TUC and others, as that would be an important forum in which to discuss Welsh economic matters. I hope that he will encourage local authorities, and, above all, I hope that he realises that the final test as to how the Welsh economy is performing will be the next general election. I have no doubt that the verdict of the Welsh people will be to support the Labour candidates in that election.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has correctly drawn attention to the range of hard facts which clearly show the revitalisation that has taken place in Wales under the present Government. Our economy in Wales is now much more diversified than it was over a decade ago—and is therefore more stable and secure.
I am glad to say that the outmoded perception of Wales as dominated by coal and steel is fast disappearing. Present-day Wales has excellent communications, a skilled and flexible work force, a range of splendid sites for industry and commerce and an enviable partnership between the public and private sectors, all working together to ensure that a strong economy is securely in place as we face up to the challenges of the 1990s and move


forward to the next century. I am glad to pay tribute to the role that the local authorities have played and are playing in that.
Unemployment continues to fall throughout all areas of Wales. The total has fallen for 42 consecutive months and in the last year by a staggering 30,500. The November 1989 unemployment total was 86,400, with a rate of 6·9 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke said, that is the lowest total and rate since July 1980. The fall of 30,500 in the past 12 months represents 26 per cent. of the unemployed and since May 1986 we have seen a reduction of nearly 50 per cent. in the numbers. I am sure that the House will welcome in particular the reduction of more than 10,000 in unemployment in the south Wales valleys since the launch of the Secretary of State's initiative.
To put into perspective the measure of our success in combating unemployment, if we can achieve the same reduction in 1990 as we have achieved in the past year, unemployment in Wales will be lower than the current level in south-east England.
Wales already has an unemployment rate far lower than many regions of the United Kingdom and is maintaining its position among the regions with the highest reductions in unemployment. Furthermore, the current rate of 6·9 per cent. for Wales is certainly lower than the EC average and for many of our main European competitors.
The fall in unemployment has been matched closely by the growth in the numbers of people in paid employment in Wales. Between June 1986 and June 1989, the number of employees in employment in Wales grew by 78,000 to 965,000, despite the loss of about 10,000 jobs in the energy, mainly coal, sector.
Male employment, predominantly full-time, went up by 23,000; female full-time employment went up by 33,000; and female part-time employment went up by 22,000. Those figures speak for themselves and totally dismiss the Opposition allegations that the jobs being created in Wales are primarily female part-time. Indeed, 72 per cent. of the employment growth since 1986 has been in full-time jobs.
In addition, the growth is not confined to the service sector. Since 1986, service employment has grown by 10 per cent., but that is dwarfed by the 14 per cent. growth in manufacturing, the 33 per cent. growth in metal goods, engineering and vehicles, and the 20 per cent. growth in financial services.
Since the beginning of 1979, 675 new manufacturing plants, which are still in production, opened in Wales and now employ 44,500 people—in employment terms, some 20 per cent. of all manufacturing employment in Wales.
Since 1980, the stock of business in Wales has increased by 16 per cent. to nearly 82,000, and the net increase 1987 to 1988 was 4·1 per cent., only marginally less than the figure for the UK as a whole, which was 4·2 per cent., but higher than for any other region except the south-east, East Anglia and south-west.
The number of self-employed in Wales has grown from 115,000 in 1981 to 151,000 in 1989, an increase of 31 per cent. I noted what the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said on that point. I counter his statement by saying that one would not expect self-employment to grow quickly in Wales, bearing in mind our tradition of

dependence on our major industries, but the spirit of enterprise is certainly alive and flourishing in Wales, as the facts demonstrate.
Local enterprise agencies are well-established, covering virtually all the industrial areas, and there are plans to extend provision to the rural hinterlands not already covered. There are now 23 agencies either approved or seeking approval in Wales. They are spearheading the private-sector-led co-operation at local level and playing a vital role in assisting small businesses and in enterprise generation and job creation.
The regeneration of the Welsh economy is a reality. The Government have revitalised the economic and industrial base of Wales, and that process is continuing. Output figures on industrial production clearly show the advance being made. The latest figures for the second quarter of this year show that over the year, output in Wales grew by 4·1 per cent. against the comparable figure for the United Kingdom of 0·1 per cent. Since 1985, manufacturing output in Wales has grown by 33 per cent.
We have heard much about the Welsh Development Agency, which is a far different agency from the one on which we legislated during the period of the previous Labour Government. Factory lettings by the Welsh Development Agency are at record levels. In the last financial year, some 2·4 million sq ft of industrial floor space was taken up, matching the record levels of 1987–88; and with the projected lettings in the current year, agency premises will have accommodated some 20,000 jobs over the three-year period.
The Government have committed significant financial resources to ensure that the agency can keep pace with the demand for industrial premises throughout Wales. For the next year, the agency's gross budget has been increased to £150 million, up 15 per cent., and this level of provision will be maintained. That will enable the agency to plan for the future, expand its property development programme by the provision of additional floor space for industrial expansion and to continue the progress in bringing back into productive use land that has for so long borne the scars of our industrial past.
Upon completion of the latest land reclamation programme, over 15,000 acres of derelict land will have been reclaimed since May 1979—one of the largest and most sustained programmes of its kind in Europe.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister has referred to the WDA's success in filling advance factories. Does he accept that the success has been much greater in some areas than in others, and that in some, including parts of his constituency and mine, there is still unacceptable unemployent? Will he undertake to have discussions within the Welsh Office and with other Departments about the boundaries of assisted areas to ascertain whether they can be adjusted to reflect the reality and to fill factories in areas where they are needed?

Mr. Roberts: I noted the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks about assisted areas. The Government have made it clear that there will be no review of the assisted areas map during the lifetime of this Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman referred to his constituency and to mine. I am sure that he will have noted from a document which the Welsh Office has produced, entitled "The A55—The Road of Opportunity", that the WDA will be investing about £25 million in north Wales, which the


chairman estimates will generate additional private sector investment of at least £100 million and create more than 3,000 jobs within the next two or three years. It is to be hoped that some of the jobs will be quite well paid, and they will enable the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine to buy homes of their own.
Inflation is the greatest threat to our long-term prosperity. United Kingdom inflation performance over the whole period of this Government is far better than during the period 1974–79. which saw the highest United Kingdom inflation experienced this century. We are not taking lectures from the Opposition on this subject. I do not think that any of us wants to return to the period between March 1974 and April 1979, during which the average increase in the retail price index was 15·5 per cent., with a high of 26·9 per cent. Compare that with the Government's performance since June 1983, when the average increase has been 5·2 per cent. with the highest figure at 8·3 per cent.
Even so, we regard the present level of inflation as too high and we are determined to counter the damage that unchecked inflation will cause to national economic performance. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that the main priority is, and will continue to be, the reduction of inflation. This action is working through high interest rates, and Wales will share in the benefits that will stem from the Government's firm control of the situation.
Against a background of falling unemployment and substantial factory lettings by the WDA, we have the details on regional aid further to underline the economic diversity that is taking place in Wales.
In 1988, regional aid was associated with capital investment of nearly £1 billion and some 32,200 jobs. To the end of November 1989, the figures are £1·3 billion and 15,500 jobs. There can be no doubt about the effectiveness of regional selective assistance as a forceful measure to provide for the expansion of indigenous industry and to attract new industrial investment and jobs to Wales. In 1988–89, grant acceptances for regional selective assistance in Wales amounted to £81 million, which is 30 per cent. up on the previous year, and one third of the Great Britain grant total.
We have heard much about inward investment. We remain increasingly confident about the future of the Welsh economy. One reason for that is the very large share of United Kingdom inward investment taken by Wales. It is consistently about 20 per cent. of the total, and was 22 per cent. in 1988. This is a record to be proud of when we have only 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom population. Since April 1983, 500 mobile industrial investment projects have been secured for Wales, involving £2·5 billion of capital investment.
In the past year, Ford announced a £750 million investment at its Bridgend plant; Toyota is to build a £300 million engine plant at Shotton; and West German Robert Bosch is investing £100 million in a new plant near Cardiff. All the jobs associated with those plants have yet to come on stream, but they will help in our commitment to reduce unemployment still further.
There are over 250 foreign-owned companies in Wales providing employment for about 50,000 people. We have the greatest concentration of Japanese companies in western Europe. Those overseas concerns cover a broad

range of industrial activities and have undoubtedly made an important contribution to the restructuring of the Welsh economy.
Further evidence of the broadening base of the economy of Wales can be seen from the more recent emergence of the growth in the financial services sector. Based on the percentage growth achieved over the past 10 years, I forecast that, by the mid-1990s, more than 100,000 people will be employed in the financial services sector in Wales. More recent developments include the Trustee Savings Bank deciding to relocate its insurance work to Newport, and National Provident Institution establishing a major part of its work in Cardiff. Those follow decisions by Chemical bank, Rothschilds and Banque Nationale de Paris to relocate functions to south-east Wales, which is now firmly established as a growing force in the financial services sector of the UK. Quite simply, this reflects the growth of the Welsh economy and a demand for financial services which the market is increasingly recognising.
The hon. Member for Torfaen referred to earnings in Wales. Between 1988 and 1989, average weekly earnings of adult full-time workers in Wales increased by 9·9 per cent., which was greater than six of the other nine regions in Great Britain. The average increase for Great Britain was 9·8 per cent., which was bettered by all the Welsh counties save West Glamorgan and Gwent.
Under the previous Labour Administration, average weekly earnings in Wales increased in real terms by 6·1 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. Since 1984, the comparable increase in real terms is 12·2 per cent. —exactly double the increase under the Labour Administration—and we have cut the basic rate of income tax from 33 per cent. to 25 per cent. as well as increasing main personal allowances by over 25 per cent. in real terms.
A key part of the Government's strategy of regenerating Welsh economic life is the massive investment in Wales to improve road communications. Since 1979–80 some £800 million has been spent on providing 140 miles of new and improved motorway and trunk roads, and over £200 million has been spent on maintenance and renewal.
In south Wales it is clear that the M4, and the major improvements on links to it. has stimulated significant economic development and the Government, through their commitment to the second Severn crossing, clearly intend to stimulate further economic activity.
I am well aware of the problems of the Baglan-Lonlas section of the M4. We are taking steps to improve the roundabouts on that stretch of road. We intend to dual the whole section between Baglan and Lonlas and we hope to start on the Earlswood section early next year.
The completion of the A55 in north Wales will provide opportunities to increase the prosperity of the area. It was for this reason that I undertook on behalf of the Secretary of State to consult a wide range of interests in north Wales to seek their views on how best to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the £550 million investment in upgrading the A55 from Bangor to Chester. I was very impressed by the plans that the local authorities at district and borough level had already worked out in that regard by way of anticipated development.
On 6 December, the Government published their document which sets out a framework for a range of policies and proposals that can further benefit north Wales. We have already seen the impact that the expressway is having within the context of the


Government's successful implementation of their economic policies. The future for north Wales lies in harnessing the enterprise and initiative which clearly exists. In addition to inward investors, we want to encourage the indigenous people, the native people, to develop businesses. The Government will continue to encourage a positive approach from the public and private sectors to ensure that the A55 is used to enhance the economic, social and cultural life of north Wales. We look forward to a full debate on the document in the Welsh Grand Committee early next year.
The hon. Member for Torfaen mentioned business rates. Business and commerce will benefit from the certainty and stability which the new system of uniform business rates will bring. The results of the revaluation will be known shortly. It will have the effect of redistributing tax burdens, not increasing the overall burden on business, which will remain at about 20 per cent. of local authority costs. In general, revaluation and the uniform business rate together will reduce the burden on industrial property, particularly in the valley areas of south Wales—a further boost to reinvigorating the valleys economy.
The Secretary of State has met his commitment to ensure that Welsh business contributes no more in real terms in 1990–91 than it will in 1989–90. The total take from business—£443 million—is £10 million less than predicted. Hon. Members have mentioned the impact on small businesses. The transitional arrangements are designed to give both enhanced protection to small businesses facing increases and quicker reductions to small businesses entitled to them. More than 80 per cent. of all properties in Wales are "small" for that purpose.
There can be no doubt that one of the requirements of a thriving economy is a skilled and well-trained work force and a spirit of enterprise. Across the Principality, there is a growing realisation of how vital training and enterprise are to our future success. I do not think that the hon. Member for Torfaen intended to cast any aspersion on training when he referred to the number of young people currently being trained. He might take an opportunity at a later date to emphasise, as I hope to do now, the key importance of training in providing a skilled work force, which is essential to our future success.
The development of training and enterprise councils will be a key factor in fostering those qualities in the future. Local employer-led councils will have responsibility for determining the nature of training provision and of enterprise suppport which are appropriate for their areas.
There has been a warm reception for the concept of TECs and a magnificent response from employers and others with an interest in education, training and business enterprise. They are working together to develop councils in their areas. Earlier this week, I was very pleased to be able to present a certificate of development funding to the chairman of the north-east Wales group, and I was able to hear agan at first hand the interest being shown in TECs.
The north-east Wales group was the third group to receive development funding of nearly £100,000, following on from the others in Mid Glamorgan and west Wales. Development funding applications have also been approved recently for TECs in South Glamorgan and in north-west Wales. A bid from Gwent is under consideration, and good progress is being made with discussions on arrangements for Powys.
Early in the new year, the whole of Wales should be covered by TECs in a development phase, and all are expected to start active operations during 1990. All that has been achieved well in advance of the three to four years that we originally envisaged. TECs will make a real impact on economic growth in their localities. They will help to provide the answer to many of the black spots where unemployment percentages are high but the figures may not be all that great.
TECs will bring together the two strands of training and enterprise into single strategies for their areas, liaising fully with the other bodies involved. They will work to stimulate enterprise and the local economy; they will help businesses to develop training suited to present and future needs; and they will provide support to inward investment activities by responding rapidly to new requirements. TECs are poised to make a real contribution to the economic growth of Wales in the 1990s.
Glancing at Wales as a whole, north Wales offers striking evidence of the transformation. Delyn is a particularly good example of what can be achieved if the Government, local authorities and the public sector co-operate effectively together. There has been substantial investment in the Delyn enterprise zone, with about 1,300 new jobs being created since designation in 1983, and remarkable progress is being maintained through the development of the Greenfield business park.
We are also seeing increased demand for factory floorspace across north Wales into Gwynedd as companies—including possible foreign ventures—anticipate the improved communications and infrastructure benefits which the A55 will bring.
Within mid-Wales, the Development Board for Rural Wales expects 1989–90 to be a record year for factory allocations—some 350,000 sq ft will be allocated.
Further south, we can see clear signs of development being drawn westward. Camford Engineering has taken over the Austin Rover plant at Llanelli and the buy-out of Llanelli Radiators by the Japanese company Calsonic has secured the existing jobs and involves massive new investment. The Ministry of Defence will be creating 250 new jobs at Llangennech.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke will know, we have invested substantial resources in the Milford Haven enterprise zone and the major deep water facility at Pembroke dock was supported by funds from the Welsh Office.
I could go on to cover the remaining parts of Wales, but fear that I may not. A new Wales is emerging, and we can confidently look forward to continuing success while this Government remain in office.

School Buses (Safety)

5 am

Miss Emma Nicholson: This debate has arisen from a tragedy from which we hope that we can achieve a better result. In my constituency some time ago, a boy called Lee Kelly died when he alighted from a school bus. He crossed the road as he was allowed to do by the rules—everyone involved was following the rules—and was killed by a car passing the bus. He was so badly damaged that his internal organs could not be used for transplant although, being a sensitive and intelligent boy, he had requested, obtained and filled in a donor card only a week or so before.
That accident is not the only accident to have had such tragic results in the United Kingdom. I quote from a paper sent to me by the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations:
A five year old boy got off the school bus, returning home as usual with his 11 year old sister. His mother was not at the stop as normal, because she was unable to cross the road due to traffic. The boy, excited to see her, went behind the bus and started to cross the road himself. He didn't see the lorry coming. His mother frantically shouted to him to stop. He froze in the middle of the road and was killed by the lorry as it sped by the school bus.
Shortly after Lee Kelly's death and a little further away from my constituency, but near my own village, three children got off a school bus and tried to cross the road. Again, a lorry came past. The driver slammed on the brakes to avoid the girl but hit both boys, one of whom suffered severe brain injury.
Of course, this is not a problem in Devon alone, where school transport vehicles were involved in about 11 accidents last year—it affects every part of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, for example, eight children under 15 have been killed since 1984 after alighting from a school bus.
My own efforts have been spurred on and stimulated by Lee Kelly's mother, Kathy Kelly, a remarkable woman, determined that her own tragedy shall be turned into something more positive and that anything that she can do to ensure that other mothers will not suffer her loss will indeed be done. Spurred on and urged by her, I sought a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister and I am most grateful for his ready, speedy and intelligent response. I also sought a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, who reacted in the same way.
Some immediate action was taken in Devon in the area in which Lee Kelly was killed. I propose that we should establish a pilot scheme significantly to identify school buses for oncoming traffic. Both the car driver and the lorry driver involved in the recent accidents in Devon—the one in my constituency and the one just outside it—said afterwards that they did not know that the vehicle was a school bus. I believe that that is at the heart of the problem. I therefore propose that my hon. Friend the Minister should take Devon as a pilot area and authorise Devon not just to put signs at the back and front of buses, but to illuminate them with flashing lights.
Thanks to our county engineer, Mr Michael Hawkins, and perhaps to the fact that our new chief executive, Mr. Richard Clark, came from an education background—he was chief education officer for Hampshire—Devon

county, encouraged by the local county councillor Honoria Broad, has taken immediate action and a pilot scheme starts in January.
I have tabled an early-day motion and I pay tribute to my colleagues on both sides of the House—45 to date—who have shown their support, not just by signing the early-day motion but by writing to me asking what else they can do to help. I have puzzled about the best that we can achieve, because it is a tough problem. Although I have quoted some sad cases, nevertheless every day thousands of children are transported—23,000 in Devon alone—and reach home and school safely.
I thought that one of the first things to do would be to establish how many children were killed or injured in that way, I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Secretary of State for Transport
how many children of school age have been injured in traffic accidents involving designated school buses in the last 12 months; and how many have been killed.
The Minister replied:
The information requested is not available."—[Official Report. 6 December 1989; Vol. 163, c.219.]
The NCPTA, which cannot find the figures either, points out that the highest casualty rate for pedestrians killed or injured is among the 10-to-14 age group, followed by the five to nines. Some 20 per cent. of pedestrian casualties among children aged five to nine years and 39 per cent. of casualties aged 10 to 16 were on journeys to and from school. I must make it clear that those are not accidents on buses. They occurred while the children were on their way to school—not on buses, but just walking. We cannot find the figures that we seek, and I urge my hon. Friend to obtain and analyse them for the future.
It is of interest and concern to discover from the Bus and Coach Council that less stringent standards are applied to the operation and use of school buses than are applied to public service vehicles. The director general says:
There are about 66,000 school buses … owned and operated by local authorities. Many of those are involved in the carriage of school children. PSVs … number about 71,000.
Certain requirements are needed for class VI public service vehicles but not for school buses. School buses do not have to specify the number and position of the emergency exits or the fuel tank location relevant to the doors specified. There do not have to be first aid kits on board. The gangway dimensions and the minimum seat dimensions do not have to be specified. Passenger communication with the driver is not restricted. Passenger protection measures are not specified and neither is the driver's accommodation.
Instruction of the driver is not restricted or the carriage of inflammable or dangerous substances prohibited. The marking of exits and emergency exits does not have to he specified nor the access to emergency exits. The steps, platforms and stairs do not have to be specified. The driver does not require a public service vehicle vocational licence. Crew and passenger conduct regulations do not have to apply. Vehicle fuelling with passengers on board is permitted and drivers are not subject to drivers' hours regulations. In addition, the annual inspection for school buses covers less than one third of the items for public service vehicles.
Could that be the reason why school buses going around the United Kingdom are often aging vehicles, almost rusting, which appear to have gone out of service in the 1950s and been resurrected for school runs?
The Kent newspaper, the Ashford and district Kentish Express, reported on Thursday 30 November 1989:
An explosion aboard a crowded school bus which injured eight children has sparked off a protest campaign by frightened parents … a rear tyre exploded sending wheel-arch debris into the downstairs compartment. … One pupil of 14 is being treated at the specialist eye unit. … 'It looked as though she'd been hit in the face with shotgun pellets', said one pupil. … Youngsters sitting above the wheel-arch were thrown from their seats … as an aluminium panel smashed into their legs.
Angry and worried parents bombarded the school and the coach firm with telephone calls.
One of the more worrying comments highlighted in the report of that event, and one which is not unusual in the United Kingdom, was made by the head teacher, who said:
In future we will look carefully at the procedures on the school buses,. At the present time there is no proof of overloading with 80 to 90 children on board. It was within the law.
I suggest that that is a good reason why the present rule whereby three children are allowed to sit in two adults' seats and to stand in the gangways should be revoked. Despite the fact that we do not have sufficient buses to offer a seat to every child, we should make every effort to obtain that necessary result.
The quality of minibuses also causes anxiety. There is a move towards minibuses, perhaps because the quality of the larger buses is so poor. The medical officers of the Schools Association have written to me:
It was good to read your excellent letter in The Times … You made so many good and wise comments … send me any replies you get from Transport or Education. May I say that our Association has been very concerned about the use of minibuses for transporting schoolchildren, often overcrowded and ill-equipped. As you say, I am sure that they should have radio links or mobile telephones. Would you also agree they need fire-extinguishers and comprehensive first-aid kits? … It does seem that the authorities have been dragging their feet for years and, I am delighted to learn that you are pressing Her Majesty's Government on these vital, life-saving matters.
Another head teacher wrote to me from Essex about the problems of dangerous driving:
Although the route is not heavily used by traffic it is very narrow and winding, there have been numerous occasions when children have been flung off seats due to sudden braking or swerving unexpectedly. Many of the small children cannot touch the floor when they sit on the seats properly. I am sure you will appreciate my concern not only in regard for traffic dangers but also to "stranger dangers." The bus drivers are not always interested and a child could easily be enticed off the bus with a stranger without the driver realising the significance.
I do not suggest for one moment that all the problems are one-sided and lie with the authorities or, indeed, with the drivers. The children sometimes behave in a difficult manner. I have received a letter from a constituent saying: "the general public do not appreciate the level of service provided—free transport to and from school for the majority of children every day—and in return the driver has to endure foul language, abuse and unruly behaviour, and the operator has to suffer vandalism to his vehicle".
That was from one of the coach operators operating school runs.
A couple of weeks ago, the North Devon Journal reported:
A leading coach operator is all set to scrap one of his regular school journeys because of an escalating wave of disturbance and foul language among pupils.
The trouble is so alarming that adult passengers … in the centre of Barnstaple have rushed off in disgust before it pulls away, even sacrificing their fares, to avoid the barrage of four-letter words.
The travel operator
has thrown down a challenge to parents: 'Travel with your children and see for yourselves. You'll find it a real eye-opener."'
Comment has also been made about drugs. I do not have substantiated figures, but I know that there is cause for concern among the police. I believe strongly that parental responsibility for children's behaviour on buses is of extreme importance.
I have amassed more material of the same type as I have already quoted. Parents have written to me from all over the country since I put one letter in The Times two and a half weeks ago. Head teachers, parent-teachers associations, doctors, bus drivers—everyone has written, and the letters keep pouring in. I shall pass them all to the Minister. I feel confident that I shall be meeting him again, as I know that he is as determined as I am to try to find the best solutions.
I ask the Minister to consider a 10-point code of good practice. First, all buses should carry distinctive signs, front and back, warning motorists that children are boarding and alighting. That was the first point that my hon. Friend and I discussed, which he accepted in principle, and which is to be put into practice in a pilot scheme. Secondly, school buses should be illuminated with flashing lights to make the vehicles more visible to motorists. Even in the short while since I put that point to the Minister, comment has come back from other parents proposing another idea. They suggest that flashing lights may be difficult in darkness and that it would be better to have an illuminated light which is switched on when dusk falls. I commend that thought to the Minister.
My natural third point is that no standing should be permitted on school buses. I do not believe it right that children should be allowed to stand in the gangway, and they should be told to sit down if they do so. I understand that standing is permitted under current legislation. I urge the Minister to move towards redesigning or redesignating the seating capacity so that, eventually, we get away from three children being counted as two passengers. Would my hon. Friend want his child to be on a bus with 79 other children and no other adult? I would not want any of my nieces or nephews to travel in such conditions.
My fourth point is that seat belts should be made compulsory on all school buses. The Minister knows that we in Devon feel strongly about this. I understand my hon. Friend when he says how difficult it is for Britain, that he is negotiating in Europe, but that it is tough for us to act alone. I urge him to be most fluent and energetic in his negotiations with our European partners. I cannot understand why they do not wish to introduce such seat belts.
Fifthly, first-aid training should be compulsory for all school bus drivers and schoolchildren. Perhaps the saddest and most miserable part of the inquest transcript that I read of Lee Kelly's death was the fact that the bus driver, poor man, had no first-aid training. He did not know what to do and, incidentally, no more did the van driver. The


schoolchildren got off the bus with their coats and looked for a mirror to see whether Lee was breathing, which he still was.
Surely it is not too much to ask that all school bus drivers should have a certificate in first aid. St John Ambulance staff, or our ambulance drivers—the men and women who know so much about first aid—in a short lesson could teach school bus drivers how to offer simple first aid and give them a certificate. Will the Minister urge his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science to provide in the national curriculum that, at some time during a child's time at school, there should be one compulsory lesson in first aid, and professional ambulance men and women should be called in to give the lesson?
The most difficult suggestion that I have to make is that all traffic should be halted when children board or alight from school buses. That is commonplace in the United States of America and Canada. The Alberta code of conduct is fierce, and the same sort of code applies in the United States. I appreciate the smallness of this island, the overcrowding that we suffer in terms of people and traffic, and the congestion in our major cities. Nonetheless, is their no possibility of the Minister looking at this suggestion most carefully, even if it were put into practice only in rural areas? The accidents that I described, which took place in rural areas, would not have happened if the traffic behind had had to halt.
It will be interesting to see whether the pilot scheme being carried out in the Hatherleigh area from January will have a beneficial effect on traffic so that cars coming behind buses slow down or even halt when their drivers see the sign and note the flashing lights. The police will be monitoring this, and Richard Clark, the chief executive, told me from county hall that, in the spring, once the scheme is up and running, he will be most willing to produce a video and full records of what happens. I had a lengthy talk with him this weekend. He is as concerned as I am that we should get this right. I urge the Minister to see whether there is any way in which, in country areas, traffic could be halted when children board or alight.
I have requested that when school buses make regular stops, particularly in the country, there should be signs saying "School bus stop" of the same colour as the signs on the back and front of the bus. I do not know why we do not have those already. There should be adult supervision, in addition to the driver, on crowded routes to ensure that proper safety procedures are followed. Not every route needs that—some are not crowded and I hope that not too many buses have 80 children on board. How can we expect a bus driver to cope under the conditions which I have accurately described from particular cases, and which are not unusual, without another grown-up on the bus?
School buses should be equiped with radio links or mobile telephones for use in emergencies. In Devon, it can take a long time for the ambulance to come, not because the ambulance does not move fast, but because it has a long way to go. It takes me two and a half hours to cross from one end of my constituency to another, and I drive rapidly. The ambulances cannot come as fast as a small, ordinary passenger car and need to be alerted at once. If a bus has to stop in a remote area—such places exist—a radio link or mobile telephone is needed in order to summon help.
If we were able to adopt the 10-point code of practice, it would avert other tragedies. I cannot help but think, as

I read the material that pours in daily as a result of the campaign, that there is a much larger tragedy waiting in the wings. We mourn Lee Kelly and the other children. Let us, for heaven's sake, not need to mourn more deaths and injuries. I urge the Minister to discuss the code with his colleagues and to push for its early adoption.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: It is my pleasant task at this ghastly hour of the morning highly to commend the work of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). She has without doubt raised an important matter before the House and country, and the public response that she has described bears testimony to that.
When I wanted to find something pertinent to say in I he debate, I did what I suppose many Members of Parliament do: I asked my research assistant to contact the Library. That was instructive, because almost everything that the Library sent to me emanated from the work of the hon. Lady herself. It also appears from some of the replies that she has had in the House that she has been pushing at an open door. I hope that the Minister will follow that through today and give us even more positive information.
As the hon. Lady said, she is trying to introduce this code of practice because of the tragic death of one of her constituents. One death is one too many, but having looked at the available material, I share her concern that we do not know the extent of the problem. We do not know how many children are being injured in these circumstances, or how many killed. The hon. Lady rightly pointed out that the statistics of teenage pedestrian casualties are abnormally high compared with those of our European partners.
Many families are so worried about road safety that they do not allow their children to be on the roads except when that is unavoidable, so the statistics may relate to accidents that occur when children travel to and from school. That is very worrying; I hope that the Minister will confirm that he is taking steps to deal with the problem of our lack of knowledge, and that he will produce new advice for his Department or for local authorities about the gathering of statistics, the better to ascertain the extent of the problem.
The Opposition share the hon. Lady's concern about the general standard of public service vehicles. We have pressed repeatedly for improvements in those standards, which we believe have deteriorated because of the Government's policy of deregulating bus services.
I have observed in London and around the country that very strange vehicles are carrying schoolchildren to and from school. We do not see such buses transporting anything else, and that is worrying, too. It is a fact, not just a lay person's opinion, that standards are lower, and that increases our anxiety.
Safety must be paramount in any form of public service, especially for children. In the main, we support the hon. Lady's 10-point plan; we are keen to see the experiments supported, and if it is found practicable, we hope that most of the plan will be implemented quickly.
ILEA would certainly support the idea of clear signs on the fronts and backs of buses. The hon. Lady's idea of illuminated signs instead of flashing lights would find widespread support.
It seems absolutely obvious that children should not stand on buses, and we are amazed to find that it is common practice and permitted by law. Most adults are very worried about that, and it could be changed quickly. We hope that it will be. The same applies to three children being regarded as two for seating purposes. We support the idea of compulsory seat belts on buses and of first-aid training.
We also look forward to hearing more from the Minister on halting traffic. The experimental scheme in Devon may produce information that will help in making a judgment. However, the problem does not exist only in rural areas. I have lived in a number of urban areas, when I constantly saw children in hazardous situations—such as alighting from a bus and then walking to the back of it, close to passing traffic. London's one way streets pose an additional danger. School buses having only one exit are often obliged to allow children to alight from the side of the bus that traffic is passing. There is a clear case for arguing that the other vehicles should halt in those circumstances.
The standard colouring and marking of school buses, as is done in the United States, should be pursued. Standardisation would clearly help the motorist, and we are keen to learn the Minister's response on that aspect. Whatever proposals for improving safety standards he may put before the House, we hope that he will make it clear that local authorities will not be expected to find further sums from their restricted budgets to meet any additional cost involved in implementing those measures. Safety is a national responsibility whose costs should be met by the Government, not passed on to fare-paying passengers—although that hardly applies in this instance—or to local authorities.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has consistently pressed the Department to consider the compulsory fitting of reversing alarms not just on school buses but on public service vehicles in general. That request is relevant to the debate, and perhaps the Minister can say whether his Department is giving it further consideration.
The debate has been interesting and worth while, despite the lateness of the hour.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): The earlyness of the hour, the hon. Lady means.

Ms. Ruddock: The Minister corrects me. As a comparatively new Member, I am not sure whether this debate is taking place in the latest hours of the previous day, or in the earliest hours of the next.
Whichever day it is, the debate has been valuable, and I commend the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West on her comprehensive presentation, which I know will produce good results that will secure the support of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House —and that of the public at large.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on raising the subject of school bus safety in the same manner as she has adopted in dealing with me on many previous

occasions. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) adopted the same style—albeit that she is not nearly as new a Member of Parliament as she would like us to believe.
Since becoming Minister for Roads and Traffic, I have met many people who have experienced grief, tragedy and other problems associated with road accidents of one form or another. Only yesterday, I was concerned with the case of a Mrs. Stone, whose 17-year-old daughter was killed in a road accident. I have involved myself in the campaign against drink driving, and mothers and fathers have told me about the loss of their loved ones of all ages through drink-driving and the effects of those tragedies on them. The death of one of my hon. Friend's constituents is a case in point. Often such a tragedy is required for anything to happen, but one of my objectives is to avoid that. Tragedies inevitably spotlight particular problems—and this is one of them—but they should not be required to bring about a response from Government.
I know a good deal about this subject from personal experience. My two young children, aged 13 and 10—the 13-year-old probably would not like to be described as young—use the school bus every morning. They travel some 16 miles from my home to their school in Blackpool, and I am only too well aware of the problems. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which she presented those problems, and trust that her campaign will go from strength to strength, because it is helping me—and my officials—to bring about changes that we hope will prevent accidents in the future.
I am happy to put it on the record that, since I came to the Department in June, I have been immensely impressed by the dedication of my officials in dealing with the problem of road safety. The Department's good record is, I think, generally accepted, and I know that my officials have welcomed the opportunity of my hon. Friend's campaign to do what many have wanted to do for a long time.
I shall consider much of what my hon. Friend has said in considerable detail. She has been able to raise the issue in the public prints, on the Floor of the House and by asking questions, and the response that she has received is all grist to the mill. I was particularly pleased that we were able to agree to a pilot scheme in Devon. It is a big county, with both rural and urban problems, and we shall learn a lot. I shall examine the results with considerable interest, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has encouraged the chief executive to let me have the information in due course.
I should add that I have a slight constituency interest in buses and coaches. As my constituency contains the Leyland bus company, I have been closely associated during my time in Parliament with both general and specific matters relating to bus and coach safety.
I have been negotiating closely with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, who has a real interest in these matters. She has learnt—I am sure that she knew already—that to a large extent they are the concern of the local education authorities, and, through them, the DES.
I shall be considering in some depth the 10-point code that my hon. Friend mentioned to the House. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) drew attention to the variety of buses and coaches used by education authorities; as she said towards the end of her


speech, the costs to the authorities are substantial, and they therefore opt for more economically priced vehicles then they might otherwise.

Ms. Ruddock: Cheaper.

Mr. Atkins: "Cheaper" is indeed the word. As has already been said, it is early in the morning.
It would cost a great deal to introduce specialised buses for use on school trips, such as the fleet of bright yellow buses used in the United States, and the education authorities would have to pay. The authorities that have been consulted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science have said in no uncertain terms that they are unhappy about the likely cost of some of the proposals that my hon. Friend and I have considered.
They are worried about the three-into-two argument, for example, and the no-standing argument. More modern buses are safer and tend to be more luxurious, but they also cost more. There are factors here which are important but in respect of which I cannot supply answers straight away.
We are already involved with signs in the pilot scheme. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for that. We shall see what comes of it, and I look forward to finding out. Considering the advantages of a flashing light or a permanent light is a jolly good idea. There has to be a highly visible sign of some sort. Flashing signs attract attention where a fully illuminated one might not. There is scope for study here. I urge my hon. Friend to encourage Devon county council to try both forms to see which is preferable. In the summer, a fully illuminated sign might not be noticeable, whereas a flashing sign would attract attention.
I share the House's view about no standing. It is dangerous and a practice that is worth considering. I have already said, however, that local education authorities say that it will cost a lot of money if the result of having no standing is that more buses are required. My hon. Friends in the Department of Education and Science may also have views on the enormous increase that would be required in their travel budget. It is nevertheless a fair suggestion, as is redesignating the seating arrangements.
We have to be realistic about this. On modern and some older coaches, which are quite large, there is room for three children on a seat designed for two people. That does not really answer my hon. Friend's question. If, as I hope, we shall have a seat belt for every seat, three children would not be able to use a seat for two. That may be the point at which we make a change.
I feel strongly about the provision of seat belts, and we are doing some work on that. Our objective is to have them fitted on all seats in minibuses and coaches. I recently had a meeting with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders at which I talked in general terms about the possibility of seat belts on coaches. I cannot make their provision mandatory for reasons which I think the House understands—they involve the European Commission—but I can at least encourage the option to be made available. Seat belts are available from one or two manufacturers, and I hope that all will get the message from this debate that they should be made available. Education authorities could then specify them if they had the necessary resources.
First-aid training is an excellent suggestion. I was surprised, as was my hon. Friend, to learn that none is necessary. I suspect that it is one of those things that has gone almost by default. It, too, is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Education and Science, but I shall add my weight to the idea.
It has been recognised that the most difficult area is whether traffic should be halted when a school bus is taking on or dropping passengers. Halting traffic would cause traffic congestion in cities. In the morning at least, school buses travel at the same time as everyone else, and I suspect that stopping traffic would cause great difficulties. Rural areas may be able to follow this suggestion, but even there there may be a problem with narrow winding lanes. I cannot give a specific answer now.
My instincts tell me that it would cause congestion and create difficulties in keeping the traffic moving, which is a contributory factor to road safety and casualty reduction. However, we are considering it. Devon county council may have some views on that and I look forward to hearing them. It may be possible to specify certain areas where it would help, and if that is the case I shall consider the matter in detail.
It is easy to have a bus stop outside a school as that is where the children will be, but picking them up is not so easy. My own children's bus picks up where people hail it or where children find it convenient. That would not be necessarily the same spot every day, and if it were, there would be so many pick-up points that having bus stops dotted round would affect sensibilities, create excessive street furniture and perhaps be counter-productive. However, there may be some merit in having special brightly coloured bus stops outside schools in busier areas. I hope that that will be revealed by the pilot scheme. Perhaps Devon county council will use a brightly coloured, highly visible temporary bus stop. I should be interested to hear the results of any experiments, but it is not quite as easy as it sounds.
The same applies to supervision by adults. I am not an education specialist—although everyone who has been to school always thinks that they are—but the problems that schools have getting teachers to do extra work would apply. I suspect that it will be difficult to persuade teachers —especially in rural areas. For example, teachers who live in Blackpool will not be frightfully keen to take the bus 16 miles out to where I live. The supervision does not have to be done by teachers; the parents may volunteer.
As my hon. Friend is aware, although children in her constituency and my children especially are extraordinarily well behaved and never in any way offend against the discipline of the parent or teacher who is in charge, some children are not quite so open to disciplinary action. I shall not be drawn on what I would do in the circumstances, as it might provoke rather than pacify. Nonetheless, in those circumstances, parents might not be able to control the children. In some instances we are dealing with third, fourth and fifth-form youngsters who rightly have their own minds and their own views and do not take kindly to discipline from teachers, let alone from someone else's mother or father. As it is thought to be rather bad form to give them a clump around the head, I suspect that the disciplinary factor needs greater consideration. Again, that is a serious point that we recognise.
Radio links are a very good idea, as they are no longer as expensive as they used to be. A personal radio which can


be carried should be encouraged, and I shall certainly pursue that point. I suspect that such radios are beginning to be available. Their use depends on the personal whim of the driver or the school rather than regulation, but the suggestion has much merit.
The 10-point plan that my hon. Friend has presented to the House has considerable merit. There are differences of nuance that we can pursue, and certainly the most difficult one is the halting of traffic.
My hon. Friend suggested painting the bus a special colour. My hon. Friend and the House will recognise that that means specifying a large number of buses which effectively cannot be used for anything else. That poses problems in the marketplace for bus and coach operation generally. I do not think that a bus or coach which is made for the general public is less safe because it is carrying children, provided that the substance of my hon. Friend's 10-point plan is taken into account—that is, the introduction of seat belts, special stopping arrangements and perhaps flashing lights which can be removed for the purposes of reconverting the bus or coach for conventional use. That would mean existing vehicles could be used. I suspect that designating special buses would be so horrendously expensive that it would prove difficult. As the hon. Member for Deptford rightly said, my Department is familiar with all those topics and I have learnt that they are very important.
My hon. Friend is pushing at a wide open door. I shall continue to look at this matter with considerable attention to ensure that the points that have been made in the debate and other matters relating to child safety are kept very

much in mind. I could delay the House by talking at length about what we are doing on child safety. I can say, from my experience and because of the importance of the subject, that our record on road casualtlies is as good as anywhere in Europe, but on child safety we have a long way to go. That is true of any casualty, and so long as one child is injured or killed, our record will not be good enough.
I have taken a great deal of trouble with child safety in a wide variety of areas—en route to and from school by bus or coach, on foot, by pedal cycle or in cars—and I am devoting much attention to it. The House expects me to do that, and I pledge to continue to do so. As part of giving attention to road safety for children, I assure the House that the points that have been made in the campaign by my hon. Friend are well received, and I am grateful to her for raising them.
I thank the participants in the debate on both sides, and especially my hon. Friend. The matters that she raises are important. I hope that the memorial to Lee Kelly will be a scheme which will ensure that people, and parents in particular, do not have to experience the grief of bereavement resulting from the sort of tragedy that my hon. Friend's constituents have experienced, for it is unacceptable that that should be the case.
I have experienced bereavement in my family and I know the problems that ensue. I am determined that, with the support of the House and the public, we encourage drivers, and road users generally, to recognise that children above all are our most vulnerable citizens. Anything that can be done to improve matters for them must be our priority and objective. I give that assurance to the House.

Rain Forests (Trade)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the topic of the international trade in birds, fish and rain forest reptiles was drawn in the ballot, there was a certain curiosity among parliamentary colleagues as to who would answer the debate.
One of my hon. Friends said that it was a matter for the Treasury because it controlled Customs and Excise. No, said another colleague. He thought it was a matter for the Foreign Office because, he said, one had to tackle action by the Governments of rain forest countries at source. In any event, as I was told yesterday in reply to a parliamentary question, it is a matter for Community directives.
Another opinion was that it was a matter for the Overseas Development Administration because it was really about habitat and the provision of habitat for rain forest birds.
The Department of Trade and Industry telephoned me—assuming that it was its responsibility—wanting to know what I would say in the debate. The Secretary of State's private secretary said that it was a matter of trade, so she wanted to know what I intended to ask because it would probably be dealt with by the DTI.
By that time I had already telephoned the private secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. But another colleague had the feeling that the Department of the Environment was probably involved, since it was responsible for CITES.
No, said one of my hon. Friends, who thought it was for the Department of Transport, since the wretched animals came in by air, and, in any case, it was a matter for International Air Transport Association regulations.
A senior colleague was definite in his opinion. He thought it was for the Home Office, which had animal welfare responsibilities. Yet another colleague thought it was a matter for the Department of Health, which was responsible for the quarantine regulations.
An irreverent Conservative Member, a friend of mine whose name will not be dragged from me, commented, "The answer is for you to get the Government Whips to tell the Prime Minister to come to the House to answer your debate at about half-past five in the morning." But I fear that even the daunting presence of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) on the Government Whips Bench, combined with the forces of the Opposition Chief Whip—both of whom have done me the courtesy of being present—would not be wholly persuasive in getting the Prime Minister out of her bed to answer my debate.
I think that Whitehall is very good at dealing wth matters that come within the orbit of one or two Departments, but when a subject comes between 10 Departments there tends often to be a falling between stools. My first request is that it is established which is the lead Department to deal with the problem which I have chosen to raise. I am not silly enough to suggest that there should be a Minister devoted especiclly to it, but it is important that there should be a lead Department and clear responsibilities.
Incidentally, although I am not an uncritical admirer of the Prime Minister, I believe that she cares about rain forests. I acknowledge that £100 million has been

earmarked. We wait with great interest to learn how that will be spread and used, but that is a slightly different subject.
I decided that I would approach the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as soon as I learned that I had been successful in the ballot, partly because I think that MAFF is an extremely effective Department and partly because I was extremely well received by the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) when he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry. After I went to Whitehall court, he took great trouble to follow up our meeting and to pursue the matter as best he could.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), the Parliamentary Secretary, is on the Government Front Bench, because he is a Scot and he knows the Highlands. In all my discussions in Brasilia and with other foreigners who are interested in rain forests, I begin with the same few sentences. I say that I come from a country where we have cut down a great deal of our ancient Caledonian forest. I explain that we still have problems at Abernethy, as the Minister knows, with the Mondhvie wood. I acknowledge that we are not in a position to lecture others, especially when we are destroying our peat bogs rapidly to provide garden peat.
Although there is a world problem, I do not think that it serves great purpose to go through the awful and powerful stories that have appeared in the newspapers, especially—to their credit—the tabloids. I shall quote Sian James of Today, however. The article of 31 October reads:
The beautiful young bird screeches in pain as its wings are severed with a machete before hunters nail it to a stake in the forest floor.
Its pitiful shrieks ring through the trees. The cries attract others in the flock who fly to investigate and are themselves trapped.
This stomach-churning brutality is an everyday scene".
I do not know whether that is an exaggeration. I can say only that when I was at the Altimera conference I saw parrots for sale. I asked about the position and I was told, rather movingly, "The man who is selling the parrots has seven children to feed." We must be extremely careful about making moral judgments. Many of those who do the trapping undertake it for a pittance, but considerable sums are made elsewhere.
I refer to a powerful article that appeared in last Sunday's edition of The Observer. It was written by Peter Beaumont and Polly Ghazi. It seems to show that there is an action plan in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I may be doubly fortunate in securing the debate because I take the opportunity of saying— I have given warning of this—that I would like to know whether the story in The Observer is accurate. I hope that it is.
I should add that scientists such as Peter Furley and Jim Raffa—who are distinguished Edinburgh university professors as well as professors at Brazilian universities and have taken part in the Maraca project—confirm much of the difficulty with the Amazon.
I gave notice to the private secretary to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that I was to make a glancing reference to the problem of the Yanomami. The new Brazilian President was the guest of the Government and many hon. Members met him. I do not know how tactful it is to make a plea about the Yanomami, but I shall read the all-party motion that will be tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer). It reads:


That this House expresses its grave concern for the Indian people of Brazil and in particular the Yanomami people; notes that the Brazilian Constitution requires Indian land to be demarcated; is encouraged that on 22 October the Brazilian Federal Court gave legal protection to all Yanomami lands; notes with concern however that the Yanomami's future is threatened by the invasion of their land by mineral prospectors, approximately 45,000 of whom have begun prospecting since 1987; notes with concern that these developments have led to the introduction of diseases such as an epidemic increase of malaria cases, flu, venereal diseases, and respiratory diseases, as well as large scale pollution of the environment by mercury poisoning of rivers and deforestation which have serious and detrimental impact on the livelihood of the Yanomami through crop devastation and the disappearance of fish and game; urges Her Majesty's Government to work with and encourage other Governments and international agencies to support the Brazilian Government in its efforts to demarcate Indian lands and to enforce the removal of prospectors from Yanomami lands and in particular looks forward to the day when the Yanomami people are able to live in peace and the environment in which they live is protected and restored.
I pay tribute to Roy Trevidy and his colleagues at Oxfam for taking an intense interest in the problem. I pay tribute also to our excellent embassy in Brazil, which is led by the ambassador Michael Newington. It has sent Mr. Morris and other senior colleagues to the Yanomami lands. I make no criticism of the British embassy.
The problem is not only Brazil. Last week, I was the guest of the Association of South-East Asian Nations high commissioners. I asked a parliamentary question about what studies had been
made of the situation of indigenous peoples of the rain forests of Sarawak; what were the results of such studies"?
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs replied:
We have noted reports of the arrest of nomadic Penan tribespeople for blockading logging roads. The Malaysian authorities are aware of international interest in the effects of deforestation on the global environment and on tribespeople. We have expressed concern to the Malaysian authorities, who state that their aim is to resettle the Penans and provide education, health care and an improved quality of life."— [Official Report, 11 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 497.]
I met some Penans, who are very primitive people, in Borneo, in the 1960s. They may want to continue their own way of life. It may be to the advantage of the world if they do so, because they may be the best guardians of the forest. I say that to show that it is not simply a south American problem.
I am greatly indebted to Tony Juniper and Christoph Imboden of the International Council for Bird Preservation, which is primarily concerned with the conservation of species. It is therefore of great concern that they have learnt that the number of birds dying in each consignment entering Britain continually averages between 13 and 20 per cent. In answer, I think that the Minister gave a figure of 13·7 per cent. The recent consignment of birds from Tanzanian en route through Heathrow to Miami is a good example of the scale of the problem.
Just one consignment totalled over 8,700 birds, but over 1,200 individuals died. That is within the percentage loss that appears to be generally accepted by the authorities and importers, not only in Britain but worldwide. In the United States, the figures for deaths range from 14 to 24

per cent. Current public feeling to animals must not accept that figure. If it were dogs, cats or horses in trade, such figures would be totally unacceptable.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food figures, compiled through its quarantine regulations, show that, in 1987, almost 170,000 birds other than poultry were imported into Britain. Almost all those birds will be destined for the commercial trade. United States figures show that over 99 per cent. of all birds imported are used in the pet shop and commercial trade. There is no reason to suspect different figures for this country.
While detailed figures are available on this trade in other countries, there are no comparative figures available in this country. For example, in the United States in 1985, over 18,000 grey parrots were imported and almost 2,700 died. No such specific comparable figures are available in the United Kingdom.
Birds are not the only animal commodity traded in such numbers. Tropical fish, both marine and freshwater, imported into Britain alone total over 400 million. The trade generally accepts a mortality figure of around 5 per cent. to 10 per cent., but that accounts for 40 million individuals.
Obviously a total ban on the trade in animals for commercial trade is ideal, but the present climate would never accept such a measure. However, limiting the trade to those individuals which are captive bred will certainly reduce the trade and the mortality figures. Interim measures which could be easily implemented include a stronger resolve by Governments to get to grips with this problem and to implement the CITES checklist scheme.
The problem experienced by the International Air Transport Association is very important. It is vital that the dialogue between the CITES secretariat, through the standing committee, and the live animals board of the International Air Transport Association, the Animal Air Transport Association and the International Office of Epizootics be continued; that applicants for export permits or re-export certificates should be notified that, as a condition of issuance, they are required to prepare and ship live specimens in accordance with IATA live animals regulations for the transport of live specimens by air and the CITES guidelines for transport of live specimens for marine or terrestrial shipments; that to assist enforcement officers, CITES export permits or re-export certificates should be accompanied by a crating check list to be signed immediately prior to shipment by a person designated by a CITES management authority, the person so designated being familiar with the live animals regualtions; that where parties to the convention have designated ports of entry and exit, animal holding facilities should be provided; that parties be encouraged to gather information on mortality occurring during transport and to note obvious causes of such mortality; that to the extent possible, parties should ensure that animal holding facilities are open for inspection of shipments, with the concurrence of the transport company, by CITES-designated enforcement personnel or designated observers; and that any documented information be made available to the appropriate authorities and transport companies.
Those are all matters for the Department of Transport. I hope that officials at that Department will read the Hansard record of this debate and will write to me at their convenience about it. As soon as I knew that I was to have this opportunity to raise the subject, I phoned the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to inform the officials


there of the matters that I considered to be their responsibilities. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to my points.
I am greatly indebted to Mark Love, the senior legal adviser to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; to Gerry Lloyd, the RSPCA's parliamentary liaison officer; and to the RSPCA chief inspector at the sharp end, Andy Foxcroft, for helping me to formulate my questions.
First, what criteria are applied by the Ministry in granting licences under the Importation of Birds, Poultry and Hatching Eggs Order 1979? For example, does the Minister take note of any relevant previous convictions for importation offences? It seems to me that those convicted of habitual and repeated offences should not be allowed to continue in trade.
Secondly, is there any liaison between the Department of the Environment and MAFF when an individual applies to import protected species of birds and seeks the necessary licences from the respective DOE and MAFF departments? Specifically, is it the case that MAFF says, "We are interested only in hygiene," and that the DOE says, "We are interested only in the convention in CITES"? That is my impression. If I am wrong, I am sure that I will be told.
Thirdly, does the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food require production of the relevant Department of the Environment licence for protected species of birds before issuing an import licence under the Importation of Birds, Poultry and Hatching Eggs Order 1979?
Fourthly, are there any controls or checks to prevent dealers from importing protected species of birds by multiple applications for import licences for family pet birds? I am concerned about this matter. There are dealers who, under the guise of family import, bring in up to six birds—that is their entitlement—and are making multi applications. That is an abuse of the system. It is what happens particularly in relation to valuable birds. Some birds and parrots are extremely valuable—we are talking about thousands of pounds.
Fifthly, when protected species of birds are imported through the animal quarantine station at Heathrow, who checks that the necessary Department of the Environment licence has been granted and complied with? At present, there is only a MAFF licence.
Sixthly, what inquiries and checks are made that imports of protected species of fauna under zoo licences are for zoological study rather than for import into the commercial trade? The zoo directors and Roger Wheater in Edinburgh in particular are concerned about this matter. People should not be deprived of pets, but they should be captive-bred. Captive-bred parrots make much better pets.
Seventhly, on how many occasions in 1987, 1988 and 1989 have officials from Customs and Excise asked to see the relevant documentation supporting protected species in transit through the United Kingdom to a third non-EEC country, as provided by article 5·4 of EEC regulation 3626/82?
Eighthly, in the recent transit flight involving protected species of birds, in which over 1,200 flamingos died—it is greedy to bring in that number of birds; it is disgraceful —did any officer of the animal quarantine station ask to see all the relevant CITES export documents, as provided

in 5·4 of EEC regulation 3626/82? Why did the animal quarantine station not call in Customs to check the relevant CITES paperwork?
Ninthly, what inquiries and checks are made to ensure that protected species of birds that are imported as captive-bred birds are captive-bred? I suspect that there is a great deal of labelling that birds are captive-bred when they are nothing of the kind because they were brought in and, therefore, supposed to be cheaper. That will not do.
Tenthly, why are family pet birds that are the subject of CITES protection imported in ports other than Heathrow? On 13 December in a question, which was answered on 18 December, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I asked:
what are the implications for the enforcement of regulations concerning the Wildlife Trade and the implementation of CITES of the effect on specialist skills, including intelligence gathering and criminal identifications, resulting from the proposed move of the Custom and Excise Endangered Species Branch from London to Southend.
I am not at all happy about the Economic Secretary's answer. He said:
There is no reason to suppose that the proposed relocation from London to Southend of the small group of Customs and Excise HQ staff dealing with import and export controls on endangered species will have any significant effect on the level of enforcement".—[Official Report, 18 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 28.]
That may be a technically correct answer, but like the rest of us, the Customs officials have families. It is a question of moving, and it may not be easy for them. I do not know what their personal circumstances are—whether they have mortgages, or kids at school, or whatever. However, for one reason or another, justified or unjustified, the unit seems to be being broken up. That is a tragedy, because comparatively few people have the expertise to make the decisions that are so necessary. Possibly that matter could be taken up.
Lastly, I cannot resist returning to a subject that I raised with the Scottish Office at 3.15 this afternoon. Why has the Scottish Office refused the eminently reasonable request of the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) for an independent chairman of the Science Co-ordinating Committee? I am profoundly unhappy about the break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council. That is a matter for the green Bill and for debate elsewhere, but those who go about breaking up the NCC and its expertise should think, and think again, about the effect of that on the subject that I have raised. I thank the Whips, my Chief Whip and the Minister for their presence.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has done well to raise a subject of great concern to the House. Clearly, it is a matter on which he is campaigning most ardently and with an impressive depth of knowledge. I thank him for his customary kindness and courtesy to me and to those others who have been present at this hour of the morning to listen and respond to his debate.
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman made at the start of his speech—that responsibility for this problem, depending on which aspect is of greatest concern, could cross many departmental boundaries. I assure him that there is considerable liaison between the various Departments depending on whether the problem at the time relates to welfare or transport or is a Foreign Office responsibility. The hon. Gentleman, who has considerable


experience of the machinery of government and how it works, will appreciate that it is not possible on any one subject to designate one Department as being in the lead on all occasions. It depends on the problem being highlighted at the time.
I am delighted that on this occasion not just the buck but the African Gray stops here and I have the chance to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased to respond to him for another reason, which is entirely unrelated to his debate. The last time the hon. Gentleman and I met properly in a debate in the House was on a Committee when as a Back Bencher I decided to rise to support a new Government initiative allowing grants to be given for dry stone walls. It must have been five or six years ago—

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, I remember.

Mr. Maclean: I made my little speech on the importance of dry stone walls and the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to jump to his feet immediately after me and to stress that I was absolutely right and that dry stone walls—or dry stone "dykes" as he said—were vital to the rural economy. The hon. Gentleman spent five minutes making sensible and erudite points to back up what I had said, much to consternation of all my hon. Friends, who were surprised to see the hon. Member for Linlithgow entirely agreeing with everything that I said. They told me that my promotion prospects were ruined for ever. Thankfully, that was not the case, and the hon. Gentleman and I have both gone on to greater things.
I should like to make our position quite clear on the import trade in wild-caught birds. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made clear in The Observer newspaper at the weekend, we are not happy that large numbers of birds should have to die—whether on capture, during handling and transport or after arrival in this country—for no better reason than to make money or to be a status symbol for the owner who buys them. I question the morality of the whole trade. If it is necessary for birds of exotic species to be caged in this country, it is surely better that they should have been bred in captivity, as the hon. Gentleman said. In that way, the mortality would be reduced and wild birds could continue to adorn their natural habitat. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, and it is also my understanding, captive-bred birds are much more likely to provide responsive and amenable pets.
The hon. Member referred to the details of a study conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food into mortalities of imported birds, which was made available yesterday. The figures cover all birds arriving at post-import quarantine premises during 1988. They are not capable of separation into birds that were captured in the wild and any other categories, but the statistics are divided into birds dead on arrival at quarantine premises and those which die during the statutory quarantine period.
I understand that the study provides the first comprehensive survey of its type, and as such it will be an important basis for deciding on any subsequent measures. It reveals that of 185,000 birds, 5,000 were dead on arrival and a further 21,000 died during quarantine. The overall average mortality rate was 13·7 per cent. Those losses are in addition to unquantified deaths during capture and

subsequent handling and transport in the country of origin, for which we have no figures. Clearly losses are higher for certain bird species and for certain individual countries than for others. There can be no doubt that there is a major problem and the unfortunate cargo of flamingoes and other birds that recently transited Heathrow en route to Miami further highlighted the problem. I shall refer to that incident later.
The natural initial reaction of anyone confronted with the problem is to ask for a unilateral ban on imports of these birds. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, that simple remedy is not open to us. We would immediately run foul of our international obligations both as members of the Community and under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Nor are there powers to restrict the imports of birds on welfare grounds, either under the EC regulation 3626/82, which implements CITES within the Community, or under the Endangered Species (Import/ Export) Act 1976, which is, of course, Department of the Environment legislation.
As the hon. Member is fully aware, my Department is responsible both for ensuring appropriate disease protection arrangements and for safeguarding the welfare of birds, and indeed all animals, during transport and on landing. Taking disease protection first, the Importation of Birds, Poultry and Hatching Eggs Order 1979 is designed to reduce the risk of certain bird diseases, especially Newcastle disease, being introduced into the country by way of imported birds or poultry. Applicants for licences under the order must confirm the availability of appropriate quarantine premises which, except for pet birds, have to be inspected and approved by MAFF veterinary staff before licences are issued.

Mr. Dalyell: Quite often pigeons from France bring Newcastle disease.

Mr. Maclean: That is a fair point. However, we must ensure that it does not enter the country through birds going through the quarantine regulations.
Applicants must nominate the means of transport from points of landing to the quarantine premises and provide the names of local veterinary inspectors to supervise those quarantine premises. Applicants must also undertake to comply with our import conditions which, among other things, include a requirement that imported birds are accompanied by the prescribed health certificate signed by an official veterinarian in the exporting country. In those circumstances, there is no power to refuse to issue a licence as long as those criteria are met.
Liaison between the Ministry and the Department of the Environment in relation to individual import licences is not normally required, but all applicants for a licence under the 1979 order are told that they should contact the DoE in case a licence is required by that Department. Licences issue under the 1979 order make it clear that they provide no exemption from the need to obtain a DoE licence if appropriate, but there is no requirement for the issue of a MAFF licence to be conditional upon the production of a DoE licence.
All applications for import licences under the 1979 order, including those for pet birds, are carefully scrutinised. Checks are made to ensure, as far as possible, that multiple applications for pet bird licences do not contravene the rules for such imports, which are less stringent than those governing other type of imports. The


hon. Gentleman referred to that in his speech. If he or the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has any evidence that the pet bird import rules are being abused, I shall be pleased to receive it and I undertake to arrange for the appropriate investigations to be made. We shall be pleased to do that.
Imports into zoological collections must undergo quarantine in approved premises and are subject to official supervision. Birds are released from quarantine only once a MAFF veterinary officer is satisfied of their health status.
Turning now to my Department's welfare responsibilities, I return to the deaths of flamingos and other birds in transit from Tanzania to the USA via Amsterdam. On 9 December, staff at the animal quarantine station at Heathrow became aware of problems with the consignment. Sorting of the birds revealed the extent of the mortalities and the transport condition. Approximately 1,250 birds, including flamingos, were dead on arrival.
My right hon. Friend the Minister was able to speak promptly to Mr. Gerrit Braks, his Dutch counterpart, about the need for prompt and close co-operation in investigating this case and exploring particular lessons to be learned. Ministry vets also offered their assistance to the AQS. It is operated by the City of London corporation and it has the powers of enforcement under the Animal Health Act 1981. I understand that it is considering whether to take proceedings in this particular case under the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973. Since that is pending consideration, it would be unwise for me to say more about that specific incident.

Mr. Dalyell: Some of us were deeply shocked and angered when, on the different subject of orchids, the Customs and Excise went to enormous trouble to bring a prosecution against a plant dealer, which was overturned by the courts. That was disheartening for them. I should like to put on record my strong support for the Customs and Excise in this matter.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for the support that the hon. Gentleman has expressed for Customs and Excise and say other Government Departments or authorities charged with responsibility for prosecuting those who may have offended against regulations. I can only repeat that the authority responsible for operating the animal quarantine station, the City of London corporation, is considering at this precise moment what action it should take under the Transit of Animal (General) Order 1973.

Mr. Dalyell: There is a feeling that the courts treat offences involving animals and plants differently from other offences. They are equally offences.

Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that they are equally offences. I hope that the courts do not make that distinction. I, and all hon. Members who are in the Chamber at this hour in the morning have the strongest regard for animal welfare legislation. The Government have made clear their commitment in other cases. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry laid charges against those responsible for the export of beagles in the case of a few weeks ago. We take the dimmest possible view of any breach of any animal health and welfare regulations, and the courts would take a similar view.
I can make it clear it general terms that those involved in transporting birds or animals must know and should know that causing suffering is a very serious matter. Necessary steps will be taken by the local authorities enforcement officers or ourselves against offenders. I can also say that, as a direct result of the incident involving birds in transit from Tanzania to the United States, my officials are drawing up a general import licence which, among other things, will require advance notice to be given to my Department of consignments transiting this country so that they may be inspected on arrival here. I hope that those new arrangements will be in place early in the new year.

Mr. Dalyell: Good.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that welcome.
The hon. Gentleman will know full well that the law covering the welfare of birds in transit to and from this country is set out in the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973, as amended in 1988. It is underpinned by general provisions in the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Offenders can be, and are, prosecuted under this legislation. I have just given one such exammple. But we think the European Community as a whole should take a close look into the health and welfare aspects of the captive bird trade. That is why I made it clear, in a reply to the hon. Gentleman yesterday, that we will raise this matter in the Council of Ministers at an early opportunity.
On the specific points to which the hon. Gentleman sought a response, he will know the important fact that all commercial imports entering this country must be routed through the animal quarantine station. Staff there are particularly knowledgeable in the transport of exotic species of birds and have taken important steps not only to prosecute, but warn and advise airlines on transport conditions and practices. However, when the birds first enter the country, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise make the checks that the Department of the Environment's endangered species controls are properly met. Unfortunately the Customs and Excise department does not hold, centrally, information which would enable me to say how often its officers have checked the documentation for those species transitting this country. Nor have we been able to determine whether the relevant CITES document was inspected in the case of the recent flamingo consignment.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, certain protected species may be imported for a limited and clearly defined range of circumstances. For example, species are allowed for zoological study, and to be imported if they are captive-bred. The Department of the Environment will not issue the relevant import permits unless it is fully satisfied with the evidence submitted in support of the import applications. The nature of the information sought varies according to the circumstances of each import. I understand that some follow-up checks are made.
Family pet birds need not enter this country via Heathrow or Gatwick even though the species are subject to CITES protection. The Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Designation of Ports of Entry) Regulations 1985 do not apply where a person imports two birds or fewer and accompanies them. This exemption does not, however, apply to diurnal birds of prey—in other words, daytime raptors such as eagles, hawks and falcons.
I have referred to the study on mortality in imported birds, the results of which have been placed in the Library of the House. That study provides a basis for considering what further measures need to be taken.
Our existing arrangements relating to the import of captive birds have been strikingly successful in dealing with the disease risks which such imports would otherwise constitute. But in the light of the results of the survey I shall be taking further steps to ensure that our requirements are being fulfilled. I cannot, of course, comment on the speculation in The Observer newspaper at the weekend, but the hon. Gentleman asked me for our action plan and I shall give it.
My officials will be visiting major exporting countries to determine how effectively they fulfil our import requirements and impress upon them the importance of following the International Air Transport Association standards for shipment to the United Kingdom. These visits will enable us to decide whether it is necessary to impose additional conditions and whether there are any countries from which imports should no longer be accepted on health grounds. I will also review the conditions that are imposed after birds reach the United Kingdom, including stocking rates in quarantine premises, which my officials are already examining, and the possibility of requiring post-import prophylactic treatment for certain important diseases. Officials will be meeting representatives of the bird trade to discuss the implications of the results of the survey and the possibility of a code of practice. I will be contacting the airlines to emphasise how much importance I attach to compliance with satisfactory practice in transporting birds, and will be considering whether any further welfare safeguards are needed.
Dealing with the high mortality found among imported birds is not, however, fundamentally a problem which can be tackled at a national level alone. I therefore propose to raise this matter in the Council of Ministers at an early opportunity. I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's views about other possible avenues. Representatives of the trade will also wish to comment. We would also be interested in any proposals from organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Environmental Investigation Agency, the International Council for the Preservation of Birds and the RSPCA.

Mr. Dalyell: There is one urgent matter. There is soon to be a new Government in Brazil. It is important that they should be talked to quietly and privately. As I emphasised in my speech, there should be no sense of lecturing. There should be a discussion of the problem as between partners.

Mr. Maclean: Since this debate has touched a wide variety of Departments, I shall ensure that today's Hansard is drawn to the attention of all of them, including the Foreign Office.
At this time of year, our thoughts run particularly to the keeping and love of animals. I have in mind, for example, the excellent campaign and slogan, "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas". Many children have their own pets and are encouraged to think and remember that, if they get a pet such as a puppy, they must consider how they will look after it and what they will do with it when it grows up and becomes much larger.
I am in correspondence with hundreds and hundreds of colleagues who are desperately concerned about the treatment and welfare of horses and ponies after 1992. While many people are concerned—children are writing to me because they are worried about it—I would place a little of the responsibility on them. The next time some young girl pesters her daddy to get her a pony, she should remember that one day that pony will be a bit older and perhaps, when her interest turns to teenage boys rather than ponies, someone will have to look after that animal or dispose of it when it is older.
People who buy an animal as a pet, or whatever, must consider the consequences. The examples that I gave are relevant to this. I urge everyone who sees a captive bird in a pet shop to think of its origins, when it was perhaps flying free in the Amazon rain forest, and the many birds of that species which have died on capture on or on transit in order to supply one live bird in captivity. They should think of the sierra parakeets, 50 per cent. of which die before arriving in this country; of the red-fronted macaws, 30 per cent. of which die; and the same applies to peach-faced lovebirds. Next time anyone goes to a pet shop and wants to buy a blue-headed parrot, let him remember that for every parrot bought here another has perished on the journey—and those figures do not include deaths during capture and while awaiting export. People who buy such birds must remember that, however well they may look after them, horrendous losses have occurred to get the birds into the shops in this country.
The Government will do all that they can to protect these species. We shall tighten up the transit rules whenever possible. We shall enforce the IATA regulations strictly. We shall raise the matter in the EC and the Council of Ministers, and we shall not hesitate to prosecute offenders.
Ultimately, however, what will have the most profound effect on this trade will be a change of attitude and perceptions. So long as people want to possess these birds in cages, there will be those who are willing to supply them at any price, regardless of the death and suffering caused. But if people decide that keeping these wild birds causes unacceptable losses or suffering and that they will have no more of it, demand for the birds will end and so will their suffering.

Charities

Mr. Tim Boswell: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who represents the Department to which I had the privilege of being special adviser. The last debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), a gentleman in every sense of the word, who raised a matter of considerable importance with which many of us have a great deal of sympathy. My role this morning is to move to a somewhat different subject, but one that is appropriate to the time of year, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) has risen from his bed and come hotfoot to the Chamber to answer this debate on charities.
Christmas is a time of maximum indulgence for most of us, but it is also a time when the gap between those who cannot join in—not always for lack of funds—and those who enjoy Christmas is most clearly to be seen. One of the roles of charities is to bridge that gap. It is remarkable and to the credit of our people that so many of them muck in and help in charitable activities by giving money or time at Christmas. One of my early political mentors, Iain Macleod, was closely involved with the charity Crisis at Christmas, which does the kind of work that many of us will be doing in our constituencies this Christmas.
I speak as a member of, but not on behalf of, the all-party working party on charity law. The group spans both Houses and has been useful, I hope, to the Home Office in the deliberations leading up to the White Paper published in May. I trust, too, that it will continue to be useful as we move to legislation on this subject.
I should declare an interest as president of the Perry Foundation, a private and endowed agricultural trust working in agricultural research and organised, as so many charities now are, as a company limited by guarantee. It has a substantial income. Later, I shall advert to trends and changes in the pattern of charitable activity.
It is remarkable that this House pays little attention to charities unless there is a particular failure and something goes wrong. Even in respect of our work on the all-party group, the other place is livelier and more forthcoming. On 30 November, it had a most interesting and distinguished debate, which demonstrated the expertise that many noble Lords have in the subject. The other place often concerns itself with matters of law, which are of great importance but in which I have no professional qualification. Nevertheless, it is right for right hon. and hon. Members to turn their thoughts increasingly to the subject of charity as we move towards legislating on it in the year ahead.
The White Paper touches on the size of charitable activity in this country, but that aspect is insufficiently understood. The White Paper quotes a turnover of £13 billion per year, and charities have a number of implications for the public purse—in the form of commensurate tax relief on that income and the direct structure of Government grant aid. If one adds together the value of that grant aid and indirect Government support—such as employment training and personal social services—they total about £2 billion. Another £500 million comes from tax relief. That adds up to big business, and it supports an even bigger business—private charity.
Government assistance to the voluntary sector has been subject to separate scrutiny, which I welcome. I understand that that study is now in the hands of Ministers, and I trust that the House will have an opportunity to debate it and other charity matters when right hon. and hon. Members return from the Christmas Recess. The Government face a difficult task. If we are spending public money, we are entitled in this House to seek value. In our role as the protectors of the public interest, we are entitled also to establish arrangements to ensure that private moneys given for charitable purposes are also spent properly.
There will always be the hard cases, and when they arise there will always be calls for draconian legislation, still further controls, and a tightening up of the whole sector. Perhaps that is inevitable. However, there is an equal and opposite danger in the form of excessive control. My hon. Friend will be aware of the phrase "a light touch" in the context of his Department's regulatory responsibilities in broadcasting, and it is probably appropriate in respect of regulating charities too.
It is a matter of record that the Home Office takes a relatively low profile in the control function, and rightly. I shall comment on the Charity Commissioners later Before I do so, I may warn the House that whatever is done in this place, we must not muddy the wheels of charity. If someone feels that it is really important to donate money to the indigent children of left-handed taxidermists—and although you, Mr. Speaker, and I may not share that sentiment—it is extremely important that he should have the opportuniy to express his generosity in that way.
I recently found that my own charity, which I felt should be whiter than white, had slipped up on a technicality. Many trustees of smaller charities may not be as aware of their duties as they should be, but it is nevertheless unreasonable to impose on them huge burdens of regulatory competence with which they cannot deal. My charity is not the only one that has had to smarten itself up in certain technical respects; many of the greatest in the land have run into problems, as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations would no doubt readily admit.
We cannot have a system in which the best is the enemy of the good, and trustees find themselves harassed by onerous and unreasonable prescriptions and requirements. Whatever we do must be realistic, and I welcome the White Paper's proposal for certain bands of compliance in relation to the size of the charity. We need regulation, but we must not scare off those who wish to give.
I pay tribute to the assistance that my group has received from Robin Guthrie and the Charity Commission. The commission has not always had a good press in this place, although that has not always been the fault of its members. For a start, it is an unusual body—it could almost have been said to be the first next steps agency when it was set up many years ago, in that it has a regulatory function but is also an arm of the High Court. It is both a compromise and, in a sense, ahead of the field. It is well known and, I think, hardly controversial that the commission operated with extremely limited resources in the past, and was therefore unable to do the job as it should. We need proper regulation or no regulation at all—there is no case for semi-regulation or inadequate regulation of charities.
The new arrangements are exemplified by the move of some of the London activities out to Taunton, and by the


new team which includes part-time commissioners to supplement the work of the full-timers. Given those arrangements, I see a good prospect of improvement in the present position. In a single step we are moving from the danger of being wrapped in some Victorian cocoon—the sad world of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce—to the use of information technology and the most modern systems to keep abreast. This is a major task for the commission. The White Paper makes the reasonable point that some 4,000 charities a year—or one for every half-hour of the working day—are added to the register. It is rather like the correspondence with which Members of Parliament have to deal—it never seems to diminish very much, and the problems that it involves are constantly increasing.
We should, I think, consider a charge for registration, as recommended by the White Paper. I have reservations about whether we should also charge an annual fee for the filing of accounts, because I am not sure that it would be cost-effective. The registration arrangement for new charities, however, would at least give the commissioners an opportunity to discuss whether the introduction of a new charity was absolutely necessary or desirable, or whether it would be possible to achieve the relevant objectives through association with an existing charity.
Again, our maxim must be that, if people want to give, they should be encouraged to do so, and in the way that they choose; clearly, however, it is a good idea to provide a hoop through which they must go, to engage in serious examination of their motives and the machinery that they are setting up. There is great scope for model clauses, codes of practice and accounts to try to simplify the task and to make trustees' lives easier.
It is remarkable, although perhaps it is not so remarkable in the middle of this somewhat archaically structured debate, that the source of this business lies in the preamble to the Elizabethan Act of 1601, where we still find definitions, as glossed by Lord Macnaghten in a judgment in the last century, that are applicable today. It describes the four basic heads of charity as the advancement of religion, education, the relief of poverty and any other public purpose. It is interesting to note that, although the White Paper says that the statute of 1601 is being repealed, some of the purposes and how they are set out—the relief of aged, impotent and poor people, the maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners, schools of learning, free schools and scholars in universities, the repair of bridges, ports, havens, causeways and churches and others—still continue to be referred to.
We have new motorway construction work in my area. The Department of Transport is unwilling to pay for some bridge guarding on a side road because, it says, that is outside its specification. The provisions that I have just mentioned struck a chord with me in that context. I have not entirely abandoned the possibility of public funding, but at least there is a possibility of telling local people, "If you really believe that it is as important as you think it is, why do you not get together and raise the money to do it?"
We have perhaps forgotten the great tradition of charity. People and communities were bound together for public purposes such as the maintenance of roads and the turnpikes. That may be an area in which more happens in the future. There is clearly a shift in the charitable world, which I welcome, from the more traditional endowed

charities, which were set up by the Victorian industrialist who felt that he should give something back to his community, and the old, poor and bread charities, to new charities often with no capital at all, which depend entirely on current fund raising from the public. I think that that is a good thing, because no institution can flourish when it depends solely on the generosity of the dead. It must depend on the enthusiasm of the living as well.
That change has been accompanied by a democratic or demotic shift towards much wider involvement with charity. I welcome that, as many have been put off because they regard charity as the dowager launching some great activity. God bless the dowagers in what they can do and continue to do, but activity should go wider than that. People's generosity is not confined by their social background or by their income. I welcome the way in which Telethon, Children in Need and the rest are opening up the possibilities of charity to the general public.
Anyone who has anything to do with young people or young electors knows that they are extremely generous. They have powerful concerns for the public good. We may not always agree with them, but surely it is right that they should be brought in and should organise events such as the red-nose day. They also take an interest in how the money is spent. That is a positive change, although, as the Minister will know it has some regulatory implications as the provisions of the Charities Act 1960 are basically relevant to the old endowed charities.
It should not be thought that because I introduced the notion of the democratisation of charity I wanted to underplay or diminish the role of the traditional endowed charities, as they have a great deal to offer. We first need to find out who they are, so the restructuring of charitable registration and the White Paper will be relevant. I do not criticise the White Paper, but the experience of the working panel reveals the need to put greater emphasis on local reviews of charities.
We heard evidence from two counties—Wiltshire and Devon—and discussed their attitude to local reviews. Money has to be spent on that—it has to come either from the local authority or from the commission—but it is extremely well spent. I understand that the review of local charities in Devon unearthed some 4,000 local charities, of which 30 per cent. had not previously been registered, with an annual income exceeding £10 million.
In addition, I would emphasise the importance of keeping a local register. Devon has a database up and running which I hope it will develop wider in conjunction with the Charity Commissioners, but it must be extremely useful in dealing with the traditional relief of poverty through the county's social services as help is immediately accessible and available through the county computer network in public libraries and sub-post offices. I hope that such schemes will be set up in every county. When that has been developed in conjunction with the central register of the Charity Commission, we shall maintain it so that there is an effective local point of access and reference.
My next point is very close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) who has been in and out of the Chamber during the debate but, sadly, is not here now. He is concerned that moneys raised for public purposes are left in small sums—in penny packets—in various bank accounts and are eventually centralised by the bank but are not really applied to charitable purposes because the charities have failed or are


no longer active. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will have discussions with banks about whether some of those moneys can be applied to effective purposes.
That brings me to what is essentially a legal point—the so-called cy-pres doctrine. If one charity is no longer applicable or appropriate, the activity can be transferred to another. It is important that we interpret that widely and make the very best use of those funds. Just as over-regulation is a danger, slack money that is not being used is an insult to the donors and the rest of society.
There are certain philosophical points in relation to charities. In the experience of our all-party group, and more generally, interest in charities cuts across party lines and is in no sense a matter of ideology between us. There might be few occasions on which I would wish to share a platform with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but a charitable occasion might bring us together. We have many things in common in the House, and charities are among the strongest. We pay into and encourage our local charities, and that is an important part of our role as parliamentarians.
Equally, we share an interest in avoiding fraud on private funds that are given, or public funds that are added, to charity. Part of the area of fraud is street collections, but it is unfair to use that as a stick to beat the commissioners because local authorities often authorise collections, and the police should deal with local offences of people collecting money. It is particularly offensive when money is given by the generosity of ordinary people and is then pinched. It is important for us to take steps to regulate that area.
I could have discussed other aspects of abuse in relation to the structure of charities, but I will mention only two points of concern. The first is political activities. That area is well set out in the White Paper, and there is a reasonably acceptable balance. There will be areas of controversy, and they will appear when we see the scrutiny report. I regard the structure and approach that is set out—it is also included by the commissioners in their notes of guidance —as sensible.
The second aspect is that of certain kinds of religious cults. That is better treated by administrative means than by up-ending the whole system of the definition of charities. We could have done more in the past, in effect by saying that they are breaking the trusts for which they have been established. That should be explored before we use the sledgehammer of defining the unacceptable in legislation. The danger of defining the unacceptable is that we may also exclude some of the acceptable.
In terms of the role of charities, which is strictly the subject of this debate, it is clear that, however generous Government provision is and however important is the welfare state and the social budget, charities still have a role. There are few voices, even on the Left of politics, who now say that charities are in some sense a blot on the welfare state or are inappropriate in a modern society.
Charities score by their greater flexibility. Anything we do and anything that is set out in legislation for implementation by officials must be done by defined rules, and that is now increasingly subject to judicial review. A Minister's decision, even if made with the best of intentions, which tends to favour one citizen over another, is almost bound to be flawed. It is better in cases of discretion to use the charitable vehicle, where the trustees can make their decisions quietly and responsibly on the basis of their judgment.
It is significant, although there are no external charitable funds available to the trust, to record that in the aid to haemophiliacs, which I welcome, the Government have chosen the discretionary vehicle of the independent Macfarlane Trust rather than trying to hold it within the decisions of Government.
The most important point about charity is that it taps generosity well beyond taxpayer funding. Taxpayers may resent paying more, but few citizens are not prepared to put their hands in their pockets to some extent. Although it will be a matter for debate later, perhaps after the Budget, the more that the Government can be seen to encourage this the better. If the Government put in a bit by various means and if that is added to by the private citizen, the available resources will be increased.
It should be remembered that the contribution of the individual citizen is not restricted to cash. Anyone with experience of charities of all sorts realised that. To use the words of Christian stewardship, we are talking about time, talents and abilities. People are contributing the sweat of their brow for nothing, and that is extremely important.
That brings me to the final argument for charity, which is that it is as good for the donor as it is for the donee. It is good for people not to think that they have discharged their obligations when they have paid their taxes and kept the law, but to see what else they can do for the public good. As a Conservative, I believe that there is no clash between private enterprise, the coming together of individuals for their own profit but, because of the market system, serving the public, and what they do by means of private enterprise for the public good through charitable and public activities. I believe that people can identify much more readily with something in which they participate as volunteers and in which they have played a part rather than by being pressed men through the tax system or Government regulation.
An area of controversy—I have the privilege of being a member of the Committee that is considering the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, and I shall raise the matter in the Committee when it is appropriate to do so—is that we are bringing back to the Health Service the support of charitable fund raising and charitable activities generally. In my locality we have seen the acceleration of an accident and emergency department, which has been paid for by local fund raising. The cost has been about £600,000. In Northampton, which is on another edge of my constituency, a scanner has been provided at a slightly higher cost. These efforts have very much involved the local communities. My only concern is that in some sense NHS activities of this sort displace other funding. All of us with experience of these matters know that from time to time charities over-harvest the ground and there is no more. It is sometimes better to wait until another time or for another purpose.
In charity, we define our own view of humanity. We say something about ourselves as well as the people who we are trying to help. I do not think that it is appropriate for us in this Chamber to examine the motives of individual donors or to be sure what they could have been many centuries before. We all have mixed motives. Perhaps we are all uncertain about where we are going. It would seem that, in the activity of charity, which is of central importance, and growing importance, we bring together two great factors. There is human need, which continues, and human potential, which is great. We can fuse them and


meet the need through the potential that then exists. That is the true message of charity, and I think that it goes somewhere towards being the true message of Christmas.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): With the leave of the House, I shall respond.
I greatly enjoyed listening to the wide-ranging and thought-provoking speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). He has a distinguished interest in charity matters, and as chairman of the all-party group on charity law he, with other members of the group, has given considerable advice and help to the Home Office and to others who are interested in charity law and its reform. My hon. Friend has ranged over the nature of charity, value for money and new forms of charity, and I intend to deal with as many of these as I can.
Whatever Government are in power, I see their role not as trying to control or direct charitable endeavour but as providing a framework for it and, by the giving of taxpayers' money, helping the voluntary sector.
The Government recognise the diversity and spontaneity of the charitable and voluntary sectors. We greatly welcome their ability to respond in a flexible and innovative way. We are certainly committed to encouraging the good work of charities in this country.
It is my firm belief, which is hardening quite quickly, that entrepreneurship should not be confined to business and commerce and that it is extremely important to the charitable sector. It is vital in giving help to the community generally.
Although there certainly are services that only the statutory agencies can provide, the state cannot be expected to provide everything. It is extremely important that the different sectors work together in an effective partnership in which each complements the other's skills and experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry referred to the scrutiny of the voluntary sector. It will be published —in the immortal ministerial phrase—in due course. I am sure that in due course there will be a debate on it in the House, but that is a matter for the business managers. My hon. Friend's interest is noted, and I know that his voice will be heard when the scrutiny is published.
The voluntary sector can extend the scope of existing provision. It can spot gaps that had not been seen previously and it certainly can improve standards, in not only the charitable but in the state sector—in local government and central Government—by experimenting, innovating and introducing new techniques that sometimes those in the bureaucracies had not thought about. We learn much from the voluntary sector, and it learns from us.
The voluntary sector and the charitable world can move quickly to meet new needs or problems that escalate too quickly for bureaucracies to respond. That is particularly so with the close contact that charities have with the local communities which they serve. What closer contact could there be than that illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, who spoke of the need to guard a new bridge a little way away from new development by the M40, which I hope in my lifetime will reach Oxford and complete the link to London? My hon. Friend suggested

that his community may be able to help with that. That is a very good example of the obviously close link between my hon. Friend and his constituents.
The Government do not regard the charitable world and voluntary services as an opportunity for providing a cheap alternative to public services. I said earlier that I felt that sometimes charities are good at spotting gaps, but there is a world of difference between that and their being used for gap-filling. I see the role of charities as adding value to the community by giving and volunteering and endlessly extending in ways that perhaps even a few years ago we should not have thought possible.
The charities White Paper formed some part of my hon. Friend's speech. He referred to it in a number of ways. The approach of the charities White Paper and, I guess, the overall approach of Government, is to modernise the existing machinery, to make greater efforts to curb abuse for the sector as a whole and to return a measure of responsibility to trustees, which is very important.
We certainly want to protect funds and property given and held in this country for charitable purposes. We recognise that charities need the freedom to move with the times. We want to weed out the fraudulent and the ill-intentioned who feed off or betray the public's generosity and make life difficult for the charitable sector as a whole. We must also ensure that the charitable impulse is not suffocated by rules and regulations. That is very important. The Government's proposals in the White Paper attempt to balance those concerns; they are particularly important for smaller charities, which may become bigger charities in the fulness of time. The hope is that graduated requirements, for example concerning smaller charities, will minimise unnecessary burdens. Graduated requirements for charity accounts would make it very much easier for smaller charities to develop and grow.
The British are terrific at disaster giving. Whenever there is a charitable apeal, no country in western Europe is more generous than this. However, we need revised public collection legislation which should be easier to understand and simpler to operate. At the same time, we must respond to new forms of fund raising which, a decade ago, were unknown in this country or were only developing. In that respect I can think of telephone campaigns and telethons.
We should be looking towards self-regulation. The charitable world, above all else, is concerned with helping people to help other people and self-regulation is the best way to provide a framework for those helping other people. If legislation is necessary, the Government will respond.
The White Paper has been generally welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and that is good. Many of the proposals are, to put it mildly, technical. The cognoscenti, like my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, will be able to appreciate some of the nuances which perhaps the generality of those concerned with charities—the foot soldiers of the charitable world, those who stick their hands in their pockets—will not be able to understand. None the less, it is critical that the technicalities are dealt with so that we can get things right in the 1990s.
I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's injunction to the Home Office to use a light touch. From time to time, Home Office Ministers have to encourage, exhort or provide a framework for others in society, like the police, to use a


necessarily heavy touch. Using a light touch is perhaps something which the Home Ofice cannot do very often and for which it is not widely known. Any opportunities that Home Ofice Ministers can find to use a light touch should be grasped gratefully. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's injunction to copy the light touch model of the Government's broadcasting proposals.
With regard to the resources for the Charity Commission, I had never thoght of the commission as a next steps agency, but perhaps it may be one in its overall form. It is rather a good model for us to follow in many ways. We are certainly helping the commission with more resources. It was given £7 million last year, and it will receive £11 million this year and £16 million next year. Those considerable increases in resources are, rightly, devoted to the Charity Commission because it needs the extra cash to move towards new technology. For example, a computerised register is very important.
As the Charity Commission expands monitoring and carries out investigations, we hope that the service offered to charities and to the public will be improved. Although resources are an important element, the commission also needs new powers. I assume that it would be very happy to get rid of some of its present tasks and our new legislation should achieve that.
In passing, I should refer to the need to re-appraise and relaunch ancient charities. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry properly referred to the small sums of money which sometimes languish in hank accounts for small charities and which could be put to better use. I shall take into account what he says about the need to talk to the banks about that.
I note my hon. Friend's point about registration. I was particularly interested in his theme—I had not thought of it in that way before—about the shift to new forms of giving being a way of democratising charity in a way that, perhaps, charity had not been democratised 100 years ago.
Which groups of people give money in this country? Such data as exist, from the charities household survey and the charities aid fund—I praise the work of some of the bodies involved in collating those data—show a close link between charitable giving, socio-economic position, level of disposable income, and age. It is sad but true that young people contribute less than older people. That is a pity. They also offer less time to charitable and voluntary activity.
One estimate shows that nearly 80 per cent. of the adult population gives something to charity. However, although some people are very generous, on average, individual donations are about £2 a month. There seems to be a big difference between the British people's generosity in disaster giving—a famine revealed on the television screen or a lifeboat which turns over tragically at sea while trying to rescue people in trouble—and regular giving: that drip, drip from individuals of small sums of money which compound into large sums. We are better at the first than at the second.
People cannot be told to give more to charity, and it would be wrong for Ministers to exhort people to do so. We can create the right climate and encourage people to think about whether they can afford to give more, and provide tax-efficient and appealing mechanisms through which more money can be given. Payroll giving is an example of the mechanism through which sums up to £480 a year can be donated with tax reliefs.
At the end of the day, it is for charities to promote their own causes. I have already referred to entrepreneurship. It is very important that charities enter into a form of coalition with employers and the Government to promote payroll giving. That is critical. I am not one of those people who look at the accounts of a charitable body and then say, "Oh, between 6 per cent. and 9 per cent. is given over to administration. Surely all the money should go to those in need." I entirely agree that money should not be spent on unnecessary bureaucracy in charity, any more than in local or national government. I would not mind charities spending quite a bit of money for a few years trying to promote their activities and on advertising to get more money to make the charitable giving cake grow larger. That is a perfectly proper use of charitable receipts, provided that the advertising and promotional activity produces, substantially greater sums than have been expended. That must be carefully considered, but charities need to be just as entrepreneurial as business men or anyone involved in commerce.
My hon. Friend had an excellent maxim, which I believe I took down correctly. No doubt Hansard will correct me tomorrow with its commendable accuracy if I got it wrong. He said that, if they want to give, people must be encouraged to do so. I entirely agree with that maxim.
The new forms of charitable giving concern advertising, telethons and other forms of promotional activity. Charities have been able to advertise on television and radio since September this year as a result of changes in the code of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, about which the Government were consulted. It is right that charities should themselves decide whether to advertise. This is not something that any charity will undertake lightly, given the substantial resources needed in terms of planning and costs. The content, tone and style of the advertising will be governed by IBA rules. There are safeguards against abuse, and the IBA is monitoring developments.
This is an interesting area. I understand and appreciate the fears in the charitable sector that the big charities with the financial muscle will be able to expend the money and thus generate more money. It will be easier to raise money for children than for confused elderly people. Those arguments are well made and we must bear such fears in mind at the same time as recognising that any techniques which increase the amount of charitable giving in this country should be considered and promoted.
Telethons have caused some concern as well as gaining a broad welcome. We agree that telethons and other public appeals should be more publicly accountable. It is especially important to find out what happens to the money that is donated to telethons. We need much more information to be made available by the broadcasting authorities about exactly what happens to the money coming from telethons, where it goes, in what sums and how quickly. We need to be able to question, "Has it been spent?" Those points have to be closely considered on behalf of the generous people who have raised phenomenal sums of money, watching television through the night. I am glad that I have the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry on this point.
Having said that, we shall look first to self-regulation as the best and most flexible way of dealing with this and other new forms of fundraising. I am encouraged to learn


that the organisations involved in television appeals are already looking to set common standards. I encourage them to do so as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has put his finger on an important point. The face of charitable giving and volunteering is changing fast. We have seen in the past decade, and I guess that we shall see in the next decade, more rapid changes in the charitable world than have been seen since probably the 16th and 17th centuries. It is a time of substantial change. The directions that the change will take were more than sketched out in my hon. Friend's admirable speech. I congratulate him on his fortune in obtaining the debate and on the admirable and succinct way in which he made his contribution.

City Grant

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity of initiating what must of necessity be a curtailed debate and therefore my remarks will be brief. I know that in some respects the Minister may not be able to answer them as fully as he might wish, because negotiations are currently taking place.
City grant replaces urban development grant and urban regeneration grant. Paragraph 2·8 of the guidance notes published by the Department of the Environment states:
Most schemes will use derelict land or empty buildings.
Paragraph 2·12 states:
By ensuring that derelict land is reused or buildings brought back into use schemes should improve the appearance of a rundown area and help to generate confidence.
There is therefore a general concentration of city grant on derelict land improvements.
According to information supplied by the Library, up to 13 June 1989 the largest grant appeared to be in Southwark, at the Alaska works. The grant was for £4·million to Charterhouse Estates Ltd. Currently discussions are taking place about a grant request for about £40 million for what is termed Bradford's west end scheme. Department of the Environment officials, Bradford local authority officials and the developers have been engaged in talks. That was confirmed in a parliamentary answer on 27 June and again on 12 December. The reply stated:
Advice given to the developers and local authorities regarding any application for city grant is the standard guidance contained in the city grant guidance notes. For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not our practice to comment on individual city grant proposals."—[Official Report, 12 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 543–44.]
More information should be available about discussions behind closed doors. Three parties are involved—the Department of the Environment, the local authority and the developers. We should be given information about the essential tenor and nature of those discussions. Between those two parliamentary questions, I suspect that there was a change in the negotiations because originally the main developers were a firm called Arrowcroft, but the current developers are a firm called 3Ds Limited.
I should like £30 million or £40 million extra for Bradford. Indeed, Bradford has asked for almost £30 million for capital expenditure in schools. The announcement yesterday, or today—I am not sure, but I think that in parliamentary terms it is still today—is for only £9·7 million. The Conservative ruling party has said that there is a great need for capital expenditure.
I can tell the Minister what sort of capital expenditure I want. I should like some replacements for the 600 temporary classrooms in Bradford. I have said on many occasions that the Buttershaw first school has had to close temporary classrooms because they were so old and worn out that they were unfit for use. The local authority is providing three new temporary classrooms, but a permanent extension is clearly required—indeed, it has been required for the past 14 years. They are also needed at Wibsey and the Queensbury upper and middle schools.
We are discussing the background of city grant to finance a lavish development scheme, yet, in the 20th century, Bradford is actually building an outside toilet block to service outside classrooms because the permanent school does not have adequate provision.
On the Woodside estate in my constituency—not an inner but an outer-urban area—there is great need for window replacement. The local authority admits that there is no insulation value in the current windows. However, with the present rate of replacement, it will take 15 years to complete that project. Capital is required for private street works. Some of them are mediaeval in character. More than 2,000 private street works are required throughout the metropolitan district, yet no capital is available. There is confirmation of that from the local authority.
City grant is designed to make an area more attractive to residents and businesses. However, in a recent local authority discussion, when Labour councillors tried to ensure that there would be low admission charges so that a wide section of the population both inside and outside Bradford could take advantage of some of the facilities that will be in the development—an electronic zoo and planetarium—the majority party said that the matter had to be left to the developers, and the provision requested was denied.
Bradford college students are protesting that their students' union building, Queens hall, will be closed and turned into an arts centre that will no longer provide the cheap live music facilities currently available to students and well used by them. Of necessity, because it will be a commercial venture, it will become a high-priced, high-admission-charge facility, which will prevent students from making much use of it. Part of the college has been closed because of dry rot.
The local evening paper of Friday 8 December said:
The union may be offered another venue"—
that is, to replace the Queens hall—
if the West End scheme goes ahead, but the students say they want to keep Queens hall as it is.
Councillor Dale Smith, Chairman of Bradford council's education committee, has asked for a meeting with council bosses over the plan. Councillor Smith wants to talk to Councillor Ronnie Farley, Chairman of the council's enterprise and environment committee, and council leader councillor Eric Pickles about the plans. He also wants to know what will happen to the Alexandra building, another part of the college, which was closed this year because of dry rot.
Councillor Smith, a governor of Bradford and Ilkley college, said: 'I feel I should have been brought into discussion at an earlier stage.
I want to know whether the people discussing the West End development with the commercial planners have anything at the back of their minds to deal with the matters the college governors and the education directorate want resolved.
My plea for more information about what is happening in the negotiations over city grant seems to be shared by Conservative councillors who are not being informed by other Conservative councillors about the negotiations.
It is a matter of deep regret that this year about £3 million has been diverted from housing and education capital expenditure to buy land to be leased to developers at some future date. I recognise that this a local authority matter, not a matter for the Minister. As I have already said, Bradford is urgently in need of capital expenditure in a number of important areas, including housing and education.
At least £18·5 million of local government money is involved in the west end proposal. The criteria for city grant centre on derelict land. Without question, there is such land in the west end area. I raise the issue of whether derelict land and city grant covers such institutions as the

Odeon cinema. It is the last purpose-built cinema in the centre of Bradford. It is to be demolished and yet another shopping centre will be built in its place. It is not just any cinema. It opened in 1930 and had the biggest seating capacity in England, 3,318. It was closed for modernisation in 1968 and reopened in 1969 as the Odeon twin cinema, and it is now a triple cinema. It is a well used community building. There are 7,000 admissions a week to the bingo hall alone.
The much vaunted Alhambra theatre immediately adjacent has 10,000 admissions a week and the local authority recently spent £9 million on renovating it. The Odeon has double that number of admissions. The cinema is highly profitable and at least the number of patrons as go to the bingo hall attend every week.
It is ironic that the proposal for the west end involves demolition of the only purpose-built cinema in Bradford which is in sight of the national museum of photography. The museum is devoted, at least in part, to treasuring objects connected with cinematography as well as with photography.
The city grant discussions will involve the demolition of the successful departmental store which is the flagship headquarters of the Yorkshire co-operative society. The directors want to demolish the present building and relocate 30 yards downhill. That does not seem to be the purpose of city grant. The building has a long connection with the Co-operative movement, which started in Bradford as early as 1860. Two separate Co-ops merged in 1869.
In 1935, the building to which I referred was constructed. It was known as the new co-operative emporium. It has a distinctive design with circular horizontal ribs that have considerable depth on corner pavilions. It is based on designs of Lewis Sullivan of the United States and Eric Mendelsohn of the United Kingdom. The Minister will no doubt be keenly aware the Eric Mendelsohn was an architect who fled from the Nazi purges in pre-war Germany. He developed a style of simple, functional architecture. One of his pavilions can be seen at Bexhill-on-Sea, and it is cherished as a building of important architectural value. Surely city grant was not designed to facilitate the demolition of buildings with such an architectural heritage.
It is important to mention the curiosities attached to the development company that is now undertaking negotiations. The company that started the negotiations was Arrowcroft. It has a good track record, and it converted the Albert dock complex in Liverpool. From subsequent experience, however, I do not believe that the firm is a good landlord. I have no brief from Arrowcroft, but it has an issued capital of £12 million. That means that the company has demonstrated its capability. The local authority, however, has decided that Arrowcroft, which was formally in discussion about city grant, should not be chosen as the developer.
Another firm, 3Ds Limited, has been chosen as the developer. That company does not conjure up a convincing impression in the minds of most people. The company was formed as recently as 1986. On 13 February 1989 there were three directors and a relatively small number of issued shares—88. On 21 August those shares were increased to 97. I do not believe that 97 £1 shares represent the best basis for undertaking a £180 million development.
The allottees of the shares include Mr. B. R. Peace, Mr. P. Malkin and Old Court Limited, PO Box 58, St. Peter Port, Guernsey, Channel Islands. Other shareholders include Michael Thorniley-Walker, Peter Francis Smith and Marguerita Smith. That group do not disclose their address, but they are care of Sugden and Spencer, Arndale house, Charles street, Bradford BD1.
The company does not appear to be satisfactory, nor does it have a well established track record. On 10 July 1989 the company took out a mortgage of £16,006, but in June 1988 the company had lost £4,856. I should be interested to hear the Minister's views on the criteria that he adopts for dealing with companies that are embarking on such huge developments. At a rough guess, the development represents the biggest development of its type undertaken in Bradford. Companies with such relative incorporation, such as 3Ds, must have a large question mark over them.
I ask the Minister to provide more information about the negotiations. If the Minister does not have time to provide all the information now, I trust that he will provide it in answer to future parliamentary questions. There is an unhealthy relationship between the local authority, the Department of the Environment and the developers. They are getting together behind closed doors.
For city grant to be given, certain requirements and criteria must be met. Planning consent must either be given or clearly anticipated before that grant is made. Planning consent is an important process in local authorities' operations. Who will exercise scrutiny? The local authority is in agreement with the Department of the Environment and that Department will not give city grant unless planning approval is given. Giving city grant commits the Department of the Environment, which also has a planning function, to support that venture by virtue of giving a significant sum of money—I am sure that the Minister will accept that the sum is significant.
The planning process is important, as it dictates the shape of buildings, their access to roads and their general position. Within that process, however, the relationship between the local authority, the DOE and the developer is unhealthy. There is little opportunity for scrutiny and checking, as all the bodies involved are, perforce, in agreement and tied together as planning consent is given on the one hand and city grant on the other.
Of necessity, I have had to curtail my remarks. I wanted to point out that, although road works will be necessary for the new west end scheme, there are 200 outstanding road safety schemes urgently required in Bradford, but no capital expenture required. The priorities for Bradford are education, housing and road safety, and they should be considered before embarking on such a grandiose scheme.
The scheme has a number of question marks hanging over it, particularly connected with the Minister's responsibility for city grant. The taxpayer is also involved to a considerable degree. The developers and the Department of the Environment are talking of a figure of about £30 million to £40 million. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on finding an opportunity at this late hour in the parliamentary day to raise the important subject of city grant. I also thank him for saying that he does not expect a detailed response so that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) may have a few minutes to speak on the next subject.
City grant is an important way in which central Government can assist private sector capital projects in the inner city. It replaced urban development grant, urban regeneration grant and private sector derelict land grant. Taken together over the years, those programmes have provided about 410 grants worth £253 million. In doing so, private investment of more than £1 billion—£1,060 million —has been committed, providing 45,000 jobs and 11,000 homes.
Following the introduction of city grant in May 1988, the number of applications has more than doubled, to about 120 a year. The level of grant approved has increased from £29 million in 1987-88 to £67 million in 1988–89, and is expected to remain at more than 60 million a year over the next few years. Since the hon. Gentleman got the information from the Library, there have been two further grants larger than the one he mentioned—£.6·2 million in Birmingham Heartlands and £6.3 million in St. Helens. He is right to point out the level of grant now being awarded.
Real progress in our inner cities be made only by means of a close working relationship between central and local government, the private sector, voluntary organisations and local people. In central Government, we are determined to quicken the pace of inner-city regeneration. In the five months since I took over responsibility for inner cities, I have visited many inner-city areas, including Bradford and have been enormously encouraged by what I have seen. There is a spirit of optimism there, accompanied by a real determination by all those involved to see real progress made in the regeneration of our inner-city areas. In Bradford, we are fortunate to have an innovative and forward-looking local authority coming forward with exciting new initiatives.
The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), takes responsibility for working closely with, and advising, the city action team and task forces in Bradford and Leeds. We intend to give Mr. Eric Pickles and his council colleagues every possible encouragement in their imaginative plans.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned proposals to develop the west end area of Bradford city centre. Members of my Department's city grant appraisal team and other Department officials have had discussions with developers and Bradford city council about a possible city grant application to support a major redevelopment project in the city's west end area. The discussions have explored the possibility of a grant application, but as yet there is no application with my Department.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned emotive phrases such as "behind closed doors" and "unhealthy discussions," but it is necessary, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, not to reveal details of discussions with developers or their proposals. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, my Department will decide on an application for city grant only if the local authority has granted planning consent for


the development. Listed building and compulsory purchase orders were required and also have to be granted before a decision can be made. Grant applications are not to be accepted for appraisal unless planning consent has already been granted or a date has been fixed for the appropriate council committee to decide, a planning application.
Any objections to proposed grant-aided developments —and any representations, for instance, about the future of Queens hall—have to be taken up with the local authority, because it is the democratically elected body responsible for planning and development control. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the specific questions he asked about the project and attempt to deal with the points that he raised.
Looking at Bradford today, I am aware of all the different schemes coming forward. All the ingredients for success are present in Bradford—a dynamic and enterprising council determined to provide value for money and improved service, a healthy and strong private sector, good voluntary organisations and, especially, strong and vibrant local communities. It is to those local people that we look to ensure that there is adequate consultation before any of the schemes go ahead, and I shall watch progress with great interest.

Elderly People (Nursing Homes)

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity, if only for a few minutes, to mention this important subject. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and my hon. Friend the Minister for making that possible.
The level of DSS benefits for elderly people in nursing homes is wholly inadequate to meet the charges of nursing homes in the south-east. A typical nursing home's charges have risen from £212 to £248, not because of greed on the part of the proprietors, many of whom operate practically on the verge of bankruptcy, but because of the 15 per cent. nurses' pay award and the 25 per cent. increase in interest rates. By comparison, benefit increases have amounted to only 2·5 per cent.
Not only does this create a considerable problem for those operating the homes, but it acts as a major disincentive to building new homes. It is estimated that we shall need to build two 40-bed homes or extensions every week to cope with the increse in numbers of elderly people. That will generate considerable pressure in future. Current levels of benefit amount to about £190 a week for the very dependent elderly, who get £155 as a result of being thus categorised, plus £34·90 for higher-level attendance allowance.
Thus, a home with a high proportion of income-supported patients is viable only if the owner is a registered nurse and prepared to provide cover that she would otherwise have to pay others to provide. It is viable only if capital costs are already completely paid, so no interest is being incurred; if no provision is being made for future capital expenditure; if maintenance and small dignities such as newspapers for patients are kept to a minimum; and if the staff are paid less than Whitley council rates. Moreover, because of the length of time involved in the period of assessment for benefit, homes often go without any pay for several weeks, thus incurring interest charges and problems of cash flow.
Florence Smith is 93 and until January she lived in a residential home. When her nursing needs became sufficiently acute for the home to decide that it could no longer cope, she moved to a local, popular and well-respected nursing home. When she did, DSS benefit plus higher attendance allowance equalled the charges levied by the home.
However, within a few weeks the charges had been raised to £210 a week, which is extremely modestone of the lowest fees in the south-east. Most homes in the area charge well over £300. Mrs. Smith's daughter is a pensioner herself, wholly dependent on the state pension, and although she is willing to provide the small necessities —clothes, toiletries and so on—she cannot regularly make up the shortfall, let alone the increased gap that will open up if the home is forced to increase its charges again.
When I wrote to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, she replied that it was never the Government's intention to cover the cost of residing at such homes, no matter how high. I contend that, the way things are, the Government are not covering the cost in the south-east at any rate, no matter how low.
Another of my constituents has a wife aged 77 suffering from Parkinson's disease. She is now in a nursing home after years of being cared for in her own home by her


husband. First, he had to wear down his capital to become eligible for benefit, and now he finds that the gap between the amount being charged to him and the sum that he can claim is so great that it is causing considerable problems, which are a source of worry to the wife as well as to the husband.

It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [15 December.]

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Selwyn Gummer—motion No. 3.

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: Not moved, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Secretary Walker—motion No. 4.

Mr. Goodlad: Not moved.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Secretary Clarke—motion No. 5.

Mr. Goodlad: Not moved.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Resolved,
That, during the proceedings on the matter of the Future Economy and Environment of North Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before 4.00 p.m. nor continue after the Committee has considered the matter for two hours at that sitting—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After the long debate on the Adjournment following the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Government—who have a majority of 150 over the Labour party—have failed to move three items of business on the Order Paper. Can you, Mr. Speaker, establish whether the reason for that is that the Government cannot find 40 Tory Members of Parliament to carry those three motions, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and I intended to oppose the obnoxious motion on the census?
After a long night of debate, and without any member of the Tory Cabinet being present in the Chamber, the Government are reduced to such a shambles that they cannot get important items of business through this House.

Mr. Speaker: The question whether a motion is moved is not a matter for me.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The census order is very unusual because it is part negative and part affirmative, and it is amendable. Obviously, you were unable to call any of the amendments to that motion, but no doubt the Government will be tabling it again. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to re-examine the amendments and to consider allowing a proper debate on them, as the motion presents the House with a rare opportunity to amend a statutory instrument.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's request is purely academic, because I have no knowledge whether the motion will be tabled again.

South American Leafminer Fly

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mrs. Marion Roe: The glasshouse industry faces a threat to plant health of major proportions. Unless action is taken soon, that threat may decimate the United Kingdom's glasshouse industry. There is little time to take action, and an incorrect decision now may prove catastrophic for glasshouse growers and pose a real risk to those growing outdoor crops. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important subject before the Christmas recess. In this case, time really is of the essence.
The threat is due to an insect known as the South American leafminer—liriomyza huidobrensis. Until October this year, it was unknown in the United Kingdom, but findings have since been confirmed in at least 28 nurseries, spread across southern England but concentrated especially in the Lea valley. The pest is spreading and there are no effective control measures available to United Kingdom growers. The pest has its origins in central and south America. It is a European Community quarantine organism and a United Kingdom statutory pest, which means that growers must report any findings to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food plant health and seeds inspectorate and that all European Community countries must inform the European Commission of any occurrence and prevent its spread within, and between, member states.
The leafminer appears to have reached the United Kingdom via Holland, where it was first positively identified in August this year. By that time, it had become widespread in the Netherlands and was causing severe economic damage to edible and non-edible crops. Strict control measures are still being applied there in an attempt to restrict its spread. More than a third of the lettuce crop in the Westland area has been destroyed, and controls on exports from affected nurseries are being rigidly enforced.
The South American leafminer is known to cause severe damage to a wide range of both edible and non-edible crops. Of particular concern are vegetables such as lettuce, tomato and cucumber, and ornamentals such as chrysanthemums and gypsophila. The insect does its damage in the larval stage. The larvae mine between the upper and lower surfaces of the leaves, disfiguring crops, rendering them unsaleable and causing yield losses in crops such as tomato. Severe infestations can cause entire crops to develop distorted and discoloured leaves.
I understand that economic damage in the United Kingdom has, to date, been minimal, owing to the low levels of infestation and the eradication policy of MAFF's plant health and seeds inspectorate wherever outbreaks have occurred. It is crucial that we learn a lesson from Holland, where the pest has exploded into plague proportions within a single season.
Our only hope of controlling its spread in the United Kingdom is to eradicate it from ornamental crops while the incidence on edible crops is at a very low level. Once it becomes established on edible crops—it has already been detected on such crops in at least four nurseries—the possibility of chemical control will be greatly reduced, and widespread crop destruction may then become necessary to control its further spread. Nurseries replanting edible


crops are at greatest risk, especially cucumber growers who are at risk both from the damage caused by the pest and from the likelihood of destruction orders to control outbreaks because chemical controls for such crops are very limited.
Unless the many outbreaks on ornamental crops are eradicated now, there is a grave risk that the scourge will spread to edible crops. Our best hope is to eradicate the pest during the winter. We do not know whether it can survive outdoors through a European winter, and severe frosts will certainly be in our favour. The danger is that, if it is still in the country in the spring, its spread from nursery to nursery will be rapid during the summer. Moreover, we are unable to predict the consequences for outdoor crops, which are also host plants and include celery, beans and potatoes. I am convinced that growers should have all the weapons that they need to bring the pest completely under control now.
There are non-chemical methods of control. The leafminer is susceptible to a number of parasites. With no experience of their use, however, and given the varying effectiveness of biological control agents, it is clear that such controls do not offer an immediate solution. As I have emphasised, the problem must be dealt with now, and growers must therefore rely on chemical methods of eradication.
If the leafminer is to be controlled successfully, both adult and immature stages must be destroyed. Owing to its habit of mining, however, only a few chemicals are able to move through the leaves to reach the larvae and kill them. Unfortunately, the pest shows evidence of resistance to chemicals recommended for its control. There is, however, an insecticide—Abamectin—which provides excellent control by killing the larvae within their mines. It is used on ornamental crops in France, Spain and the United States, and will shortly be used in Germany; it is also available in Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The Dutch, too, appear to be gaining control of the leafminer, by means of a chemical programme which includes Abamectin. The insecticide is already used on tomatoes in Spain and the United States, and will gain approval for use on edible crops in Holland early in the new year.
In the United Kingdom, however, this insecticide, which is so desperately needed by growers, has been in the queue awaiting evaluation by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for more than 18 months—since April 1988. Since the introduction in 1986 of new legislation governing the approval of pesticides, I understand that only 11 new molecules have been approved and there are now over 40 molecules waiting to be evaluated. Even if Abamectin were to be looked at by the MAFF scientists tomorrow, it would still take some six months for the product to gain approval. Abamectin has been in the queue for too long, and growers' livelihoods are at risk now.
I stress that I fully recognise the crucial importance of allowing only safe pecticides to be used in this country, but I find it hard to believe that such concerns are any weaker in Holland and the United States where Abamectin is already in use. My feeling is that, faced with an emergency such as the one now threatening the glasshouse industry, MAFF and the other Government Departments concerned with pesticide approval must be prepared to adopt a more flexible approach.
An acceptable solution would surely be the restricted release of Abamectic now to deal with outbreaks of the

leafminer on non-edible crops. While allowing limited use of Abamectin, MAFF should lay down the most stringent safety precautions to protect spray operators. At present, such use is allowed on 2 hectares under an experimental permit. I see no reason why, in these exceptional circumstances, that could not be extended to cover the nurseries affected by this newly invading pest. Meanwhile, the product should be brought forward for evaluation by the MAFF scientists now to enable it to be fully available to growers as early as possible next year. The scientists should make full use of the data used to satisfy Dutch and American departments of the chemical's safety for spray operators.
What makes the situation even more extraordinary is that the product was sold perfectly legally in the United Kingdom under the limited clearance system up to January 1987. It seems incredible that a plant health disaster of this scale could take place because Departments are unwilling to release a product which is available for use under indentical conditions in Holland and the United States and which was quite safely used in this country less than two years ago.
It is difficult to overstress the seriousness of the situation. Many growers have recently invested in new glasshouses with the help of the MAFF grant, but a continuation of high interest rates and poor trading results has resulted in their entering the winter with increased overdrafts and undiminished loans. If growers suffer from the leafminer attack and are forced by MAFF to destroy their crops without compensation, many businesses will simply be unable to survive. How ironic it would be if those MAFF grants were wasted due to inaction now.
The South American leafminer must be brought under control quickly and completely. Abamectin has proven ability to control the pest and is being used successfully in other European countries and in the United States. Ornamental and edible produce are likely to be imported for sale in the United Kingdom after treatment with Abamectin, yet United Kingdom growers are unable to use it to protect their livelihood.
I am most grateful to the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummed, for meeting and listening to a delegation of growers whom I brought to the Ministry to see him last week. I repeat to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary the message that we delivered then—let us please have a rational approach to this disastrous situation and let us see the Ministry respond by treating United Kingdom growers as fairly as their European counterparts.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) for choosing to raise a subject which is of very real concern to commercial growers throughout the country and, of course, in her constituency in particular. I congratulate her on the forceful and powerful way in which she delivered her case this morning. The debate enables us to clear the air somewhat and to set out clearly what the Government are doing to combat the South American leafminer and to try to ensure that it does not become established in this country.
Liriomyza huidobrensis, the South American leaf-miner, is a very serious threat to the horticulture industry.


This small fly, about 2 mm in length, has a very wide host range, feeding on plants from at least 17 different families, both ornamental and vegetable, including field and glasshouse crops. Although hon. Members might not be familiar with that nasty little beastie, I am not being flippant when I say that in the Lea valley talk is of little other than liriomyza huidobrensis.
First, let me make it clear that we are in no doubt as to the threat to horticulture presented by the South American leafminer, particularly in view of the wide range of plants that it attacks. It is certainly our aim to prevent this pest from gaining a foothold in the United Kingdom, as we have so far succeeded in doing with liriomyza trifolii, the North American leafminer, which has been a threat to our growers for a number of years.
Secondly, I underline the fact that, while the South American leafminer has long been recognised as a potential danger—and therefore prohibited under both the relevant EC directive and our national legislation—it has become an actual threat only in recent months. I understand that the Dutch authorities first became aware of its presence in the Netherlands in August, as my hon. Friend said. They notified the EC plant health standing committee in Brussels at its September meeting and they introduced strong measures to eradicate it from both domestic and export trade.
As soon as we became aware of the threat, we began targeting inspections of imported Dutch plant material and produce to pick up any contaminated material that might reach the United Kingdom despite the checks being carried out by the Dutch. We contacted the Dutch Government at ministerial level and we sent officials to the Netherlands to see on the ground how the Dutch measures were being enforced and to discuss with them ways of tightening the controls.
Some people have suggested that there should be a complete ban on imports of host plants from the Netherlands. That is wrong. We believe that the range of measures agreed with the Dutch authorities provide a good basis for preventing that pest from gaining a permanent foothold in Britain and show the Dutch authorities' determination to do their part to prevent infested material from reaching Britain. With all the complexities of the horticultural trade, total bans on imports of particular plant species could damage the economic prospects of the very firms whose interests we are trying to defend. It is better to secure clean imports than to stop trade altogether. However, we shall not hesitate to impose a total prohibition on any plant species if we consider it necessary to prevent the leafminer from becoming established here.
As a result of our negotiations with the Dutch authorities, we have reached agreement with them on a range of measures aimed at minimising the risk of infested material reaching this country. These include a number of steps by the Dutch authorities to tighten export examination procedures of plants known to be hosts of the leafminer. We have agreed a widening of the range of cut flowers from the Netherlands which now require a plant health certificate—and therefore inspection—before they can be exported to Britain. We also persuaded the Dutch authorities that chrysanthemum cuttings must be fumigated before export to kill off any infestation.
In addition, imports of radishes and horse radishes from the Netherlands have to be free of leaves. The authorities in the Netherlands have also let it be known that they will not be issuing any plant health certificates after 14 December for pot plants of known host plants, which effectively prevents their export to this country. They took this action because their industry was unwilling to meet our requirement that there should be inspections at the growing stage for these host plants because of the risk of pupae in the soil, which might not be detected by normal export inspection methods.
So far, this pest has been identified only on material coming from the Netherlands—which is, of course, among the world's leading horticultural exporters—but we are aware of the risk of its spreading to other Community member states and are therefore maintaining vigilance on imports from other sources. At the last meeting of the Community's plant health standing committee, my officials pressed the Commission to consider action against the pest on a Community wide basis. We know that several other member states are also very worried, and we shall continue to press for Community action.
We consider that the measures taken have greatly reduced the risk of this pest becoming firmly established here. The signs so far would appear to give confidence that they are beginning to have some effect. It is true that there have been findings on about 30 British nurseries, affecting mainly chrysanthemums, but including lettuce, cucumber and celery, and I acknowledge that a number of those have been in my hon. Friend's constituency.
However, nearly all those outbreaks showed signs that the pest had been there for some time, certainly well before the measures that I have outlined were introduced. There have also been findings on imported produce and flowers from the Netherlands, but those have become noticeably fewer in the last few weeks.
I appreciate the genuine concerns expressed by growers that the range of pesticides presently available for use against the South American leafminer may prove insufficient to eradicate it before it establishes itself, not only on ornamental but on edible crops.
As for chemical controls, we have evidence that existing pest control programmes are beginning to have an effect and we have taken action to strengthen the growers' armoury by increasing the number of permitted applications of triazophos, which is marketed as Hostathion, for use against the South American leafminer. We have also improved the rate of application and we are optimistic that those measures will be effective.
Calls have been made—my hon. Friend made a strong call —for the pesticide Abamectin, which is approved in Holland on non-edible glasshouse crops and in Spain on certain edible crops, but not in the United Kingdom, to be made available in this country. It is not that simple. The pesticide must be evaluated on the basis of its behaviour under United Kingdom conditions. Differences of soil, climate and growing methods must all be taken into account and our standards for operator and consumer safety must be met before a pesticide can be approved for use in this country.
The House will appreciate that we cannot assume the responsibility for authorising the use of these chemicals without satisfying ourselves on those vital safety matters. The request from the National Farmers Union that the


strictly limited experimental permit for Abamectin should be extended to allow use on all affected sites cannot be met without a full evaluation of data on operator toxicity.
But I am pleased to announce to the House this morning that we have already started the evaluation of this pesticide, and my Department is now liaising with the Dutch authorities to determine whether their evaluation can be used to speed our assessment. It is hoped that the operator toxicity evaluation will be ready in about two months' time.
I cannot and will not anticipate the results, but we hope that it may then be possible to permit the use of Abamectin on affected sites to combat liriomyza huidobrensis. Evaluation of other parts of the data package to allow consideration of commercial approval will follow, but this chemical will not be allowed on the market for general use unless and until the independent experts of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides recommend that it is safe to do so.
Let me make it clear exactly what that means. If there is no risk to operators, the use of Abamectin can be authorised on an experimental basis but only on ornamental plants. It cannot be extended to food crops. Once all the scientific information has been assessed, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides will be able to say whether Abamectin is safe for more extended use on other crops. I must emphasis that that decision is many, many months away.
The companies with applications for new pesticides that are in the queue are entitled to expect fair treatment, which

they have always received from the pesticide registration authorities. I must make it clear that we have agreed to this exceptional course of action in respect of Abamectin solely because of this rare opportunity to eradicate an exotic pest before it gains a foothold in this country.
It is clear that, whatever the measures taken, this nasty little beastie will remain a real danger to horticulture. I cannot, therefore, emphasise too strongly the importance of growers continuing to remain as vigilant as possible for the signs of the pest on their farmholdings. To help them identify this leafminer—it should not be forgotten that there are numerous native leafminers, as well as the North American leafminer with which it could be confused by the layman—we shall shortly be issuing an illustrated guidance leaflet. If they are at all suspicious that the pest is present, I would exhort nurserymen and others to contact their local plant health and seeds inspector at once. We intend to increase the number of such inspectors working on the checking of plant material specifically looking for this pest.
All in all, we consider that the extensive measures that I have described should enable us to prevent the pest from becoming established here. We shall, however, keep the matter under close review. As I promised my hon. Friend earlier, we shall not hesitate to take any further measures if we consider them necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eight o'clock.